If you make online enemies it could effect your prospects for future employment. Ellen Nakashima has an article on how this is happening to law students seeking to enter the legal field, but it is happening to the online blogging community, as well.
She graduated Phi Beta Kappa, has published in top legal journals and completed internships at leading institutions in her field. So when the Yale law student interviewed with 16 firms for a job this summer, she was concerned that she had only four call-backs. She was stunned when she had zero offers.
Though it is difficult to prove a direct link, the woman thinks she is a victim of a new form of reputation-maligning: online postings with offensive content and personal attacks that can be stored forever and are easily accessible through a Google search.
What kind of stuff is getting posted?
The chats sometimes include photos taken from women’s Facebook pages, and in the Yale student’s case, one person threatened to sexually violate her. Another participant claimed to be the student, making it appear that she was taking part in the discussion.
Ah yes…posting pictures without consent (because you can), making threats (legal or otherwise), sockpuppetry… It’s all painfully familiar. And here’s the rub.
The students’ tales reflect the pitfalls of popular social-networking sites and highlight how social and technological changes lead to new clashes between free speech and privacy. The chats are also a window into the character of a segment of students at leading law schools. Penn officials said they have known about the site and the complaints for two years but have no legal grounds to act against it.
That’s really the bottom line. There are no legal grounds for acting against someone that wants to sully your reputation using the tools of the internet.
Employers, including law firms, frequently do Google searches as part of due diligence checks on prospective employees. According to a December survey by the Ponemon Institute, a privacy research organization, roughly half of U.S. hiring officials use the Internet in vetting job applications. About one-third of the searches yielded content used to deny a job, the survey said.
If you point out to people that posting derogatory information about people and linking that to their workplace will damage them, you get responses like this:
They outed themselves.
They should have known better.
Call a lawyer, it’s not against the law.
It’s all on the Internet anyway.
Of course, this is all entirely beside the point. The point is not that information is available that can be used to damage someone, the issue is that people that use that information to damage people are being malicious and should be criticized.
It’s particularly galling when such behavior comes from people that are at least ostensibly political allies, or are passing themselves off as innocent members of blogging communities.
I don’t write this to whine about legitimate criticism, or even illegitimate criticism. I write this to make people aware that there is a growing cottage industry of people that are looking to damage the careers of bloggers and blogging community members that they have some kind of grievance with. There’s no money in it (at least, I don’t think there is). It’s more done out of simple spite.
The really ridiculous part of this can be seen in what’s its done in the Law Student field.
The trend has even spawned a new service, ReputationDefender, whose mission is to search for damaging content online and destroy it on behalf of clients. Generally, the law exempts site operators from liability for the content posted by others, though it does not prevent them from removing offensive items.
“For many people the Internet has become a scarlet letter, an albatross,” said Michael Fertik, ReputationDefender’s chief executive.
That’ll never happen in political blogging community. People will just stop participating. It’s such a brilliant way to undermine blogs that it’s shocking the Republicans didn’t think of it before disaffected Kossacks did.
Since this is a meta thread, I guess I’ll add that Armando has been banned by Markos from Daily Kos. Armando claims it was done at the behest of DHinMI and Plutonium Page. That’s just his opinion. Apparently they suddenly noticed that Armando wasn’t civil. That’s a fine way to reward his loyalty. I used to get angry emails from Armando anytime anyone so much as thought of criticizing Markos and/or Daily Kos. Armando’s flamewars jacked up the pageviews at Daily Kos into the stratosphere. I guess he’s no longer convenient.
Armando acted unforgivably in the orange threads for several years. He made many enemies. But that is still no reason to try to do him harm or get him fired. And it’s a little late to ban him for it.
Booman,
I think you’re right on all accounts above.
With regards to Armando; is this a banning of his new alias?
Big Tent Democrat, Armando, and any other incarnation.
… as they take great pains to point out, and by that I mean Hunter does… banning is FOR LIFE.
Scary voice: FOOOOOR LIIIIIIFE!!!!
roflmao.
as if they think that far ahead.
the thing people don’t seem to get about these blogs… using dkos wasn’t about a relationship with kos, it was about relationships with other people, just like my use of AT&T is not about my relationship with them, which should rightly stay out of the way and be uber-smooth, but with the people I’m talking too.
When kos bans someone, he is banning their conversations with each other… which does not change his right or power to do so, but I think keeping that in mind sheds light on the issue of banning and what it’s really meaning when the biggest “liberal” site on the net does it.
Danby says it’s just kos getting dkos ready for the big time… roflmao.
Blogs are here to be scary and make them hear the citizenry… political blogs anyway…. when they are coopted, they are tiny and pathetic, coopted. Sure Reid will answer kos’ email… but he’s also getting a call and has dinner with a billionaire that also has an interest in him. Kos is being used, and the money makes him think otherwise.
Having a business do well does not make you smart in politics.
as I think over all the run in’s I’ve had with him – they’ve almost always been becuase he was ferociously defending Kos / dKos
starting to feel a little like the french revolution…
only with pie instead of cake 😉
I think the right metaphor for personal information is not the secrecy of privacy but the propriety of using personal information.
I think using private information is similar to consenting to sex.
Having done it in the past does not give the right to other people.
It’s their information, it continues to be their information.
PS: dkos is well past it.
I never
Several years ago, some skanky piece-o-crap gathered up a bunch of my posts (done under a nom de internet, OF COURSE) and sent them to everyone at my office. Since I didn’t use my name, no one understood why these posts were there, but it was annoying nonetheless.
That was when I used my real email, of course.
I always:
You can’t walk into your town’s selectmen’s meeting or City Hall meeting with a black bag over your head and ask to speak without identifying yourself.
You can’t write a letter to the editor to your newspaper without using your real name and address. If you will notice, newspapers do not allow people to write letters or op/eds using pseudonyms. Period.
A basic part of being an adult in American society is to identify yourself by your real name if you choose to speak.
If you don’t want to be “outed” — then don’t speak.
Be proud of what you say and be proud enough to put your real name on it.
And that is why, last year, I decided to put my name on my Blog. Not only does it force you to think a little about who you are about to offend BUT (IMHO) it allows your opinions to carry more weight than anonymous ones.
Problem I have with this is that most of us don’t have any recourse if we pay for this stuff in our real lives.
I agree with you that what you say is more effective, often, if you’re willing to put your own name to it. You’re ignoring, first off, the difference between being anonymous and having a consistent blog pseudonym. The other factor here is that normal, average people have no means to protect themselves from harsh consequences in their real lives. If you want the opinion of the clerk from the grocery store down the street, he’s got to have some safety in giving that opinion. Otherwise, he will just keep his mouth shut — principled though he may be, he can’t afford to risk his job. And a lot of these outings are specifically about putting people’s jobs at risk — it’s how people with grudges often try to take their petty issues from words to action.
If you don’t want to be “outed” — then don’t speak.
That’s the reality, to some degree, but it’s also important to bear in mind that encouraging people to speak is half the point of blogs.
Interesting idea.
There are lots of other metaphors as well.
For instance, just because my blinds are not completely drawn shut doesn’t give you the right to peer through with a telescope.
Just because I’m walking down the street doesn’t give you a right to photograph me without my consent.
Your idea here tends to support Armando’s complaint in his original GBCW, and actually makes me reconsider my position there a bit. I was generally on the “he outed himself already a million times” side, largely because I thought it was delightful to see such vanity brought down a notch. But I understand why he was sore.
it’s a fair metaphor and there certainly are others… it’s best to apply more than one, imo. Oddly, your second example is totally legal, someone does have the “right” to photograph you walking down the street… that always seemed odd to me as well, but now I understand that it’s a public space and to do otherwise would be to prohibit, for example, photographs of new york.
I think my metaphor works pretty well but isn’t perfect… because when information is prominently displayed, it is in fact fair to use it… the net thrives on sharing information. However, I see there are distinctions outside the metaphor to distinguish in that case, e.g. if someone is grossly misrepresenting themselves committing fraud.
It comes down to what is legal and what is ethical. I guess?
Yep. Just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean you SHOULD.
Can you imagine spending all the time, energy, and money on a Yale law degree, and then having trouble finding employment because of something like AutoAdmit?
Arminius:
1, If a person is looking around with a telescope, and happens to see you in the raw,”stroking the poke” you as the stroker can be charged with a indecent exposure rap, and “telescope person” can claim that the Scarlet Tanager perched on your balcony bonsai of a Giant Sequoia attracted his/her attention.
2, being photog-ed by a stranger is really more rude that an actual infringement of rights. Even Greta Garbo learned this, and she was a recluse. Notice some of those 40’s through 60’s coffee table books of Photography of New York? Did everyone appearing in those books give explicit permission to be photographed? I would refer you to a good movie starring Joe Peschi, “The Public Eye” The story is loose take on noted New York crime photographer Arthur Fellig and several photos in that film were Fellig’s actual work. Fellig’s work is available as a rather famous coffee table book entitled “Naked City.”
3, as for Armando…..Armando who? He’s been gone from Kos as “Armando” for some time. It was my understanding that some of his troubles started with reactions against noted blogger Josh Trevino appearing on Armando’s own blog “Crossed Swords.” And some of these reactions came from the righty blogs as well as “concerned senior Kossacks.”
Yep, your first two points are accurate. I do realize that it’s generally considered okay to take photos in a public space, although “homeland security” has taken big bites out of that liberty. Nonetheless, I have an instinctive feeling that it’s an invasion of my privacy if someone deliberately photographs ME, not just takes a photo in which I am incidentally included. Being legal doesn’t mean it’s not wrong. If someone were to walk right in front of me taking photo after photo, it seems like it ought to be an actionable tort (something I could sue for).
Under some circumstances, it is. If you’re not a public figure, there are harassment and/or stalking laws. If you ARE a public figure, they’re still there but the thresholds are different. (Jackie Onassis sued Ron Galella and got a restraining order which kept him out of closeup range, for instance, though the sumbitch kept on with it as much as he thought he could get away with .)
These things only apply if the shooter’s close enough to you to actually cause physical danger or does something to make you reasonably believe that you ARE endangered. Not wanting to be photographed isn’t enough, as a matter of public policy having to do with newsgathering.
You ARE however entitled to control or prevent the commercial use of those photographs – your picture can’t be used in an ad without your consent.
This is all settled law, basic stuff, but as in many such things there are areas left undefined which become matters for judge or jury – and getting to that point takes money, so it’s not always as clear as it ought to be.
When personal information is freely displayed on the internet, e.g., on a personal blog or professional webpage, then it’s fair game to be referred to. Anything accessible via Google is fair game. It can no longer be considered “private” in any sense.
Similarly, once someone is “outed”, they’re outed. They can’t go back into the closet unless they change their username and carefully avoid any association with the old username.
All this “open secret” stuff about how everyone knows that someone is really someone else but we’re not supposed to talk about it, etc. is total bullshit.
As for Dkos, yes, it’s done. The place reeks with a rotting stench and it gets worse by the day.
When personal information is freely displayed on the internet, e.g., on a personal blog or professional webpage, then it’s fair game to be referred to. Anything accessible via Google is fair game. It can no longer be considered “private” in any sense.
Are you saying you think that you think what has happened to the law students (including Jill at Feministe) is okay, and that they bear the responsibility because they had Flickr photo accounts and the like?
I’m talking about “private” information. You’re talking about people being nasty and abusive, and trying to defame someone’s character. That happens all the time online. It’s the risk you take when interacting with anonymous strangers who may have a malicious intent.
Unfortunately, saying “Don’t be mean and abusive” won’t work – not only for reasons of free speech, as the atty from EFF brought up, but because there are varying standards for such behavior. As Kos himself admitted, Armando was cut a lot of slack because he was a friend, and Kos liked his writing. So he got away with abusive behavior for years. But if someone who disagrees with Kos takes the same tone, he gets banned.
As the EFF guy says, the response to bad speech should be more speech. If someone feels unjustly violated, they can respond with the truth. Everyone has a voice online. Until they’re banned, of course 🙂
I believe the real reason people like DD and Armando are uptight about being “outed” is that it means their real names can be associated with their manically abusive, often obscene postings. And to that I say, if someone feels his or her career might be jeopardized by such postings, they should either get a different career, or exercise some self-control and post like a civilized human being.
A couple of points.
But,
that does not mean that someone that takes actions against such people, collating damaging material and making it search friendly, for example, is not being an enormous asshole. It’s legal, it may even be provoked, but it is incredibly uncool.
Second, I have received a lot of email from people that have given information that could be used to identify them if someone really wanted to dig deep. And when they see that people are digging deep on other people they feel threatened themselves.
And that is really the nasty effect of this. Several people have asked me to erase old comments, delete old diaries, or told me they simply won’t participate anymore. They feel intimidated by these actions, which is why I consider these actions as broadly harmful to this whole medium of political action.
I don’t know what can be done about it other than making people aware of it. I don’t even think most of the people that are doing this have any intention of intimidating people. Maybe if they realize the effect they have they might be less zealous or less supportive of the efforts.
But when you go after someone because you are mad at them (whatever the merits) you wind up chilling the atmosphere for everyone.
When you have people looking into people’s dating profiles and looking to humiliate them, when you have them listing out their law firms’ clients, looking to get them fired, then it creates a poisonous atmosphere. It doesn’t matter if it is legal. If you do it, you are being malicious and people should speak up and say so.
DD and Armando both made a practice of being abusive assholes, intimidating people and trying to silence them. This is a case of “live by the sword, die by the sword”. Instant Karma, as Lennon would say.
Actually, it is an example of ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’.
Sometimes they do, though. There are people who need to get figuratively whapped upside the head with a two-by-four before they understand the concept of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Armando and DD may never understand that concept, but others watching the drama are getting the message.
last I knew, neither of them, and certainly not I, have ever tried to get anyone fired or make them unemployable. So, I fail to see your tit for tat.
Who tried to get Armando or DD fired? Who tried to make them “unemployable”?
It’s like you did read the article, this diary, or any of the comments.
What part of this tactic do you not understand?
Why does posting DD’s photo and real name, taken from his law firm’s website, make DD “unemployable”?
If it’s that easy to make the guy unemployable, then he shouldn’t have posted his real name on his personal blog and linked to it from his Daily Kos postings.
I don’t see why this is so hard for some people to understand.
You are not addressing the points.
All you want to do is make this about people that you think deserve to be punished. It’s not about just two people. I didn’t even mention those two people. This is about the effect of going after people that you disagree with (in general) by digging into their comments to glean personal information and then using that to find more personal information that wasn’t offered, and then collating it so that it all shows up on a google search of their name.
It intimidates everyone that has ever divulged any personal information. Do you not understand this?
I’ve been on the internet for 17 years and I’ve seen every manner of “outing”, vendetta, personal attack, etc. This is small potatoes in comparison with some of the internet soap operas I’ve seen.
Completely aside from Armando and DD, there is this basic issue that we have to clarify:
using that to find more personal information that wasn’t offered
But it WAS offered. That’s the whole point. IT WAS ON THE WEB. The “outing” “victims” were fully aware that this info was already on the web. Either they had “offered” it themselves, or their workplace had “offered” it, with their full knowledge and consent. The dots were all out there, in some cases with arrows pointing to them (e.g., DD’s link in his DKos sig line). They have no grounds for outrage if enterprising folk connect the dots.
i think you’ve made your position clear. Whatever political goals you might share with others, you are more interested in the right to destroy other people using any and all information you can find on them on the internet. You have become exactly like the people destroying the career prospects of law students.
along with my rating abilities immediately after I posted my last comment?
This was not a momentary glitch – it went on for quite a while.
Actually, we are talking about the same thing. The folks at AutoAdmit took photos that those women had posted online, as well as myspace/facebook information that the women had posted, and then used them in their attacks on the women’s character. In Jill’s case, her ‘attackers’ (for want of a better word) disagreed with things she had said online. Swap the genders involved and the type of comments made, and there’s not much difference.
As for the idea that “the response to bad speech should be more speech”, that only serves to drive the google hits on the abusive speech higher in the ranking and continues to feed the wants and needs of the abuser, doesn’t it?
you’re not talking about the same thing I’m talking about. I’m talking about private information, as in alleged “outings”. However, since you brought up the issue of using photos, etc. in ad hominem attacks: my response is that the internet is full of such attacks, and it always has been. Lately I’ve seen that it only becomes noticeable to certain people when their own friends are being attacked.
As for the idea that “the response to bad speech should be more speech”, that only serves to drive the google hits on the abusive speech higher in the ranking and continues to feed the wants and needs of the abuser, doesn’t it?
Maybe, but if that’s a concern, then the best reaction to such abuse is to ignore it. “Don’t feed the trolls” is wise advice. If Armando and DD had simply ignored their alleged “outings”, few people would have noticed or cared, and the whole thing would have blown over. But nooooo, they must write enraged screeds and rant about the “violation” for months on end, to the endless amusement of their enemies. In fact, it’s occurred to many people that their reactions were designed to grab attention, pour fuel on the fire, and boost pageviews. Ka-ching! So, yeah, color me unimpressed.
What is the private information that you’re talking about WRT outings that is different for each case?
The women in the article had their names, photos, email, cell phone numbers, university affiliation, place of employment used as part of the attacks, along with their photos/myspace/facebook posting.
How is that materially different from DD/Armando, aside from the fact that you feel they got what they deserved (and I’m NOT saying their online behavior was okay)? I’m sure those jerks from AutoAdmit would say those women got what they deserved too.
Really, I’m trying to understand what your delineation between the situations is here, but it seems pretty subjective.
on the women’s cases because I don’t know the details. However, I will say that if these women had created a community culture of abuse, insult, personal attack and character assassination in the same way that Armando and DD did at Daily Kos, then they should not have been shocked if their personal photos and info were used in a retaliatory strike by someone who was one of their victims.
I hope that’s clear!
It is definitely like you didn’t read the article, this diary, or any of the comments.
These are the exact arguments that you are making.
It’s exactly what I am objecting to.
First of all, this is not just about Armando and DD. Adam B actually had someone send his boss stuff in a direct attempt to get him fired, and it almost worked. And a HUGE part of the point I’m making isn’t related to the people being targeted but pertains to the chilling effect this behavior on other people (who have been sending me emails, asking me to take actions to protect them, and telling me they won’t participate in light of these activities).
That is a much bigger concern to me than whether Armando and DD deserved what they got. Maybe you could make that argument. I would disagree but I can see a case for it. But I am asking you to consider how if affects everyone else.
IMO there are other ways to strike back at someone that you think is being a jerk. Going after their livelihood is disproportionate.
As for whatever chilling effect DD and Armando have had, it hasn’t gone to hurting people in their pocketbook.
and the comments. I disagree with much of what you say in the diary, and I disagree with your attempts to make martyrs out of Armando and DD, and downplay the roles they played in their own discomfiting.
As for “hurting people in their pocketbook”, has that even happened? If Armando’s employer does a little investigating and finds out he’s been posting nonstop for days when he’s supposed to be doing the firm’s work, then yeah, maybe his livelihood will be affected. But if so, that’s HIS fault.
When bullies set out to be bullies, they have to be prepared for people fighting back. These guys weren’t. That’s their problem. Now they scream. Too bad.
It seems that you believe it’s perfectly okay for someone to use the internet to smear people as long as they’re angry at them.
Personally, when I don’t like the crap people spew online, I just avoid reading it. I don’t waste my time trying to make the intimate details of those particular posters’ lives widespread knowledge on the internet and insist they deserve it.
You mentioned upthread that “There are people who need to get figuratively whapped upside the head with a two-by-four before they understand the concept of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Armando and DD may never understand that concept, but others watching the drama are getting the message.”
You’re right. Others watching are getting the message…which seems to be SYFPH or have your personal life researched and hung out there in retaliation. And many of them are people who have never behaved the way Armando and DD did, but don’t want to be the next target of someone they didn’t agree with who thinks they have a right to publish their personal information. And since DD/A are too polarizing to use an example, how about that nut who started stalking RenaRF? Did she deserve that?
When the kos crowd was angry at you (and they were over the top, as I recall), would it have been acceptable for them to post your online dating profile and whatever else they could scrounge up on you that may have had a negative impact on you in real life?
I don’t think so.
and please don’t put words in my mouth.
To clarify the situation: nobody uncovered any “intimate details” of Armando’s or DD’s life. You make it sound as though someone investigated their personal lives and revealed private information that they wanted to keep private. That was not the case. All that came up was available with a quick Google search. In DD’s case, he linked to his blog with his real name. As far as his dating preferences go, he posted that publicly. So please don’t overdramatize this.
In answer to your question, yes, I would have accepted anyone, Kos kreeps or otherwise, finding info on me that I had posted online. In fact, I posted links to my personal and professional websites. I wouldn’t have posted that material online if I hadn’t wanted it made public! That is the crucial issue that you and Booman are avoiding. All this stuff on Armando and DD was readily available online, THROUGH THEIR CONSCIOUS CHOICE. I believe all this hoo-hah about “outing” is a big act on their part. Crocodile tears. They want to create a sensation to boost pageviews and get attention. I’m sorry to see you and Booman get suckered in by their ploy.
As it happened, several Kos folk including Miss Laura and cookiebear did make disparaging remarks about me based on my personal info – e.g., denigrating the fact that I’m a Reiki master. And Armando accused me of lying about having a husband. There are plenty such personal offenses to be found. My sense is that, like all bullies, they can dish it out, but they can’t take it.
Again, you totally miss the point. When psychopaths are out looking up people’s posts from years before to determine if they’ve ever divulged their gender, or their name, or anything that can identify them, then it makes ordinary people nervous.
The fact of the matter is that a lot of people can’t take it, and won’t. Blogging is supposed to be a pleasure and an organizational tool, and a way to get your ideas published…
It’s not supposed to be a financial risk. You get wrapped up in these personal disputes and can’t see the forest for the trees.
If MissLaura (the second most reprehensible online personality I know) used your personal information to smear you then she is an ass. And you should call her that. And the effect of it is to intimidate other people. You seem to see this clearly when Kossacks do it, but not when others do it. It’s wrong no matter who does it.
I may know DD in real life and like him, but I’ve told him to fuck off and STFU online plenty of times. I don’t need him pissing people off, sending them over here, and then carrying on personal attacks that freak innocent people out.
But the same goes for everyone else being an asshole.
that I posted in response to this? It was very civil. What was so threatening about it?
But that’s the thing about “free speech”. We have the right to free speech, but we don’t have the right to say whatever we want without risk, without repercussions. We always have to deal with the fallout.
There is no right to have your ideas published without negative consequences.
So if I’m following you, when you see a post or a poster you don’t like, if you don’t wish to engage them on the facts or their logic (or you wish you could but can’t find or frame an argument to do so) it’s reasonable and proper to wander the web and see what you can find that might be useful to drive them off the board, or to cause them enough real life trauma that they’ll become good little obedient sheep and keep their ideas to themselves?
Listen, if you need a job, I understand Mr. Cheney has at least one recent vacancy, and I’m SURE Mr. Rove is always looking for talent to sponsor. There’s even the possibility that someone might be needed to replace Abu Gonzalez….
But I suspect you won’t make many friends along the way… and there’ll be a LOT of people waiting for the chance to pay you out. I’d suggest not ever making even the slightest mistake.
Nice try, though!
no, hrh, you can apply that idea if you want, but it’s hardly automatic, nor practical.
fact is, someone outed is not “outed”… outing means people know this “information”… and NOT EVERYONE knows it, so clearly there is gradiation for being out.
Being out at work, say, doesn’t mean one is out among family, and in blog matters vice versa.
You can’t pretend that promotion of information does not WIDEN the availability by pretending there is only a black and white distinction.
I urge you to consider the metaphor of sexual and other personal consent… why should it be any different.
The only exception is someone being fraudulent, like if Kos posts as Al Gore at his site, imo. But in general, many times these “secondary outings” are the way I have learned this information that I don’t need to know, don’t care about.
If there is no compelling reason to share the information, the “he lost his outing virginity” argument is just an excuse for something lacking a sound reason.
before I get banned again… no, there is no “gradation” for being “out”, at least in regard to information that’s put on the web. What’s out on the web is “out”, and if you had put the info out there yourself, then it’s your problem.
Since when are human beings not allowed to share information unless there’s a “compelling reason”?
the problem with that theory is all your information is out there, and it’s all slightly connected.
You do have the right to seek informatioin, and share it, but ethics is not just about what you have the right to do. I think in terms of personal information the right is there to protect the exceptions where it is important, where it is on topic, and pertains. If DD was posting as a black woman, it would be pertinent to put up the “Tammany Hall Picture”.
It seems to deny reality to say there are not “gradations” of outing… information has to get to people, one person knowing something is not the same.
It reminds me of the argument that since some people in DC may have known Plame was CIA, it was Out, and of course no big deal to publish it in a nationally published opinion column. It was out there… nah.
Plus, I just realize that basically, if you log into the net, there is the hook to get all your information right there. Not just stuff people put on purpose, but all SORTS of under the hood information is being passed around. People feel anonymous on the net but now, you are eminently trackable, every step, every file, ever preference. The anonymity of the net is there mostly because we respect it.
You’re condoning stalking.
For a woman who claims to be a “feminist” you are making a rationalization that has been used by countless men to harass women.
“Oh, officer, her phone number is in the white pages…”
“Well, if she didn’t want me showing up at her office, she shouldn’t have told me where she worked.”
“She shouldn’t have left her curtains open when she was changing.”
I know you got mistreated at Daily Kos, but that does not give you the right to condone behavior that any sensible person knows to be wrong.
And if you do truly believe this, then it was right that you were banned, and the site management here should consider banning you as well; you’d be a poison that should not be kept around.
(I delurked to post this comment; hopefully folks realize the direct threat that this person’s ideas present to everyone.)
Some jackass posts his personal information on the web, and someone else later does a Google search, and then refers to the information. How is this “stalking”?
Hi hrh,
Go back and look over what I pointed out – your logic is stalker logic. I’ve worked with battered and abused women before and have seen and heard of men who justified their harassment by exactly those same terms – “well her info was public, I wasn’t doing anything threatening with it,” things of that kind. They use the public availability of information to try and escape responsibility for its misuse.
Just because you’re angry and hurt doesn’t give you the right to hurt others. Otherwise you become exactly like those you claim to oppose.
On the orange site, there are people who take any comment and save it for later, so that they can damage your reputation by bringing up utterly unrelated shit from 9 months earlier.
There are mafia gangs there who work the troll ratings to eliminate all incorrect opinions.
And that’s all between Dems.
Ridiculous.
Of course, on mydd, they now want everyone to go to YearlyKos.
I don’t understand how a site that makes money from participants can also help mafia thugs ban people.
true, but the lesson won’t be how to overcome that… the lesson is, expect that anything you write really does reflect on you.
if it’s over the top, be prepared to defend it, to put it back in context, make sure it has a context.
if it’s something you don’t want to stand behind years later… don’t say it.
if it’s something you THOUGHT you would stand behind years later, but by then you wise up… well, say that… but basically, we are being tracked by the caches of the net.
Nothing is deleted.
It will only get more and more easy to find.
Histories centuries hence will have so much information they won’t know what to do with it.
That’s just the way it is.
otoh, I have been SURPRISED how well some people keep this “for later” files.
and that is my point – there are some people who will pull up those comments that you made simply as part of the argumentation by personal destruction
pretty skanky
don’t get me wrong, I fully agree it’s skanky.
I barely can muster energy to do that ON topic… rather let people give their current view.
But, after decades of online communication I realized this stuff all has permanent tracers fossilized to stone the moment you hit “POST” practically.
I have never understood why people feel anonymous either, we are all quite trackable, so clearly, there is the need for an ethic not to use personal information. Just LOGGIN INTO THE NET give the net your location.
Agreed – I should expect it, but am still shocked
Wow. Armando finally got the boot, eh?
To be fair, if the troll ratings, etc., are going to be consistent the way they’re being applied now over there, then I suppose that would have to happen, though I still thought Armando was doing a much better job at least trying to be civil in his new incarnation. I’m not defending him being banned, though — I don’t think anybody should be banned over there for expressing their views, even if they get carried away with them from time to time.
I remember, when kos first switched to Scoop and implemented a ratings system, how careful he was to try to stress that it was just to handle the trolls (the actual trolls, not the make-believe this-guy-disagrees-with-me trolls). Such a long way he’s come, from the day he seemed genuinely conflicted about having a ratings system at all.
Sad.
On privacy issues, I couldn’t agree with you more. The existence of political blogging demands some ability to assume that expressing yourself will not have negative consequences on your ability to, say, find work. That’s true even if you’re an incredibly low key person, and everybody says something stupid at some point on the blogs.
The ratings system is ALL about enforcement of political orthodoxy and the suppression of incorrect ideas.
There are at least 3 mafias at the OS – an immigration mafia, a gay marriage mafia and an impeachment mafia.
You state the wrong opinion, it’s a troll party.
Absolutely, it has morphed into that over time. And I’ll take it one step farther and say it’s also about making it really clear who has the “right” opinion, too — disagreements aren’t “won” by people making good points and convincing each other or agreeing to disagree, they’re made by attracting the greatest number of clicks to the “recommend” button.
It’s just amazing to think about how that came to be the reality, though, because I certainly don’t think it was markos’s original intent. And I reject that it was inevitable, too.
It is simply a function of the troll rating and their ability to ban. It has the effect of empowering morons. I have never seen such self-righteous prigs and bozos as there.
As they say, the fights are so serious because the stakes are so small.
Don’t forget the Zionist/Israeli uber alles mafia.
The last time I got banned, it happened because
What is happening at DKos is that the membership is being purified. It’s just the old Thermador in the blog world – you start off with a revolution, and then you discover that other opinions exist, and these wrong ideas must be purged to keep the revolution pure.
After a short time, you are surrounded by a large pile of heads, and no one to pay the page charges.
In the French Revolution, the Committee of Public Safety was formed by Robespierre to defend the revolution by rooting out aristocrats, wanna-be aristocrats, sympathisers of aristocrats, former servants of aristocrats, and so forth and so on. The Committee gradually widened the scope of its interests so that more and more tangential people were taken, and the standards under which they were convicted became lower and lower. The final moment came when Robespierre began to look carefully at the National Assembly, and they realized the danger, and had Robespierre killed.
This is a model of many social organizations. You start with diverse opinions, and then the purists come along and root out the witches. That’s DKos right now – they are in a “root out the witches” level.
I sure as fuck would never go to Yearly Kos, or pay any money for Markos’ books or anything. He needs people like me, but I’ve lost any interest in participating in witch hunts and Thermador events.
Here’s
Armando’sBig Tent Democrat’s GBCWK Diary. Look’s like he was still posting when the DKos admin team sprung the trap door. Armando, PP, DHinMI et al. really deserve each other. As a minor victim of Armando’s heckling on a meta level it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.But on a serious level I don’t see how these flamewars are helping to get us out of Iraq and throw the scoundrels out in Washington.
That’s my view as well. By eliminating important dissenting voices (like mine), DKos becomes more and more irrelevent.
I do not understand why democrats allow other democrats to be silenced and removed.
There are several Ellen Nakashimas findable on Yahoo, including a staff writer for the Washington Post. One wonders how an HR department or admissions department could ever figure out who was who, and how they could find the time for hours of googling on each person. I’ll bet there are a million cases of mistaken identity.
It’s VERY interesting meta to hear that Armando in all guides got banned at DKos. Does anybody know the reason?
I’d sure like to see the vicious DHinMN banned. And I’d like to see the vapid Plutonium Page burned at the stake, in a movie at least.
By the way, according to Kos himself (that twit) as cited tonight on MoBettaMeta, Armando (aka BTD) didn’t get banned. He just did another histrionic GBCW diaries. Heavens. He is THE all-time drama queen. Since meta is such a delicious though unsavory vice, I guess I’ll have to read his latest swan song.
evidently he did get banned while continuing to post in his GBCW thread.
Yep, something like that. Now that I’m home, I’m actually going to go read the whole thread.
It’s an UBER SCHADENFREUDEFEST!
I don’t understand. Armando (BTD?) has his full name listed on Talk Left he keeps telling everyone he is posting on? How is that outing him? Am I missing something here??
That article is enough to drive someone like myself paranoid, since it’s someone around my age that would get targeted in this sort of manner.
Good thing the only message boards I participate in actively are political blogs and a TV forum. Nothing too crazy that goes on in those parts!
Jill on Feministe is one of the women being harassed and threatened by those fratboys and their pals.
Worth a read.
You think that’s bad? Someone’s using my good name to promote a vacation destination!
looks like a club med that has taken chastity vows.(the land is beautiful, but the architecture sucks)
I agree with dataguy completely on this. It is amazing in a sociological sense to watch the evolution over time of a distinct society from the very beginning until now.
At one time the posting on the weekends was so slow in the Diary sections that literally DeminCT and I would have “conversations” just to chitchat back and forth since we were virtually the only people online.
In those days, was there any banning because of “impure” beliefs? Absolutely not. The trolls in those days simply were the “real” trolls and they were few and far between.
It’s sort of like a small tribe where there’s one chief but the head man too is out in the fields every morning working with everyone else. And as time goes on and the division of labor becomes more pronounced, soon there is a “priest class” and to preserve the importance of their jobs, they trump up their ability to detect sacrilege and blasphemy.
And then one day the big man wonders who will rid him of this meddlesome priest and with a great hue and cry amongst the peasants, the one who threatened the big man’s position gets axed.
Logically the next step will be for the chief to assume the title of head of the church and thus write out the dogma that his people must follow. If he’s smart, the big man will trust no one and make sure to liquidate a couple of other high-ranking priests simply to ensure the loyalty and obedience of the others.
I don’t think the actual people behind the keyboards are relevant here in the sense that this is what happens every time you have a dictatorship (and a sufficiently large number of people being ruled autocratically). As Kos himself will tell you, that website is not a democracy. He is the totalitarian ruler. He owns the website and he pays the bills and he cashes the checks.
That’s why democracy, wherever it still exists on this planet, is so important. And I don’t think the blogging world will ever truly have a major impact on politics until it is more democratic. I mean how ironic is it that a totalitarian society (dKos) is trying to be the major player in affecting democratic political institutions?
Pax
I never took part in the Dkos site but I use to read it about a year ago. Didn’t like it, seemed like Lord of the Flies type little groups. Some of the posters though were interesting, but too much personal kindergarden stuff to suit me.
As for privacy, no one is safe in the cyber world…the only downside to the net information age.
I wish I could give people the gift of living free from fear, not that I’ve mastered it entirely, but I am who I am, and my employers know exactly who I am, what I stand for, etc.
I am grateful I don’t have to hide my thoughts or beliefs or research subjects. I think there is too much fear. I want us all to grow a little tougher and find ways to fight back when people come after you.
I say this as someone who has received death threats by phone, been impersonated online, and received every kind of verbal abuse under the sun. You really can live through it. The people who threaten are not going to follow through, most of the time.
If you are honest about what you feel, and if you don’t resort to the tactics your enemies use against you, it’s amazing how free it feels to just live your life out loud, without apology. It’s still, at this moment, a somewhat free country, after all.
Re Armando, it’s far past fricking time that he had to abide by the rules applied to all others. I’m sorry he was banned in that it would be better if posts and comments, not people, were deleted. But whatever – I never visit Orange anymore. There’s plenty of good information in other places and I don’t feel like helping Markos buy yet another plasma TV screen, you know?