2 ms·

I think the argument is that he promoted somebody's personal blocklist as a general blocklist, and that this therefore made him culpable. Which I think was a ju

by mst 8y ago

I think the argument is that he promoted somebody's personal blocklist as a general blocklist, and that this therefore made him culpable. Which I think was a judgement failure on his part, but not necessarily a trust related one, and I don't find the culpability part of the argument particularly convincing. Note also that I said "the subset of people involved I dislike" to try and keep my opinions separate; I'm unsure why you're responding as if I'm supporting any specific person involved when I've merely done my best to outline the situation as I understand it.

bena 8y ago
I will admit to have had you confused with the person I originally asked, so there is some minor conflation there. That's my bad. I asked them a direct question and you responded instead. They said it was his blocklist that he put these people on. And that simply by being on his blocklist, their lives were ruined. That's not the same story you told me. And ignores the part where Harper was promoting her blocklist as a superior version of ggautoblocker. She encouraged people to promote it. So to say it's his fault for promoting a "personal" list also feels hollow. He trusted Randi. That was a mistake. People blindly trusted the list he promoted. That was also a mistake. There's a degree of personal responsibility that everybody who used that list without verifying the content shoulders.
- mst 8y ago
  The story I told is the story as I understand it, from reading a smattering of articles from various viewpoints. I suspect many people have largely heard the story from a giant game of telephone on twitter, and as such details and nuance have been lost and distorted. Note that when I describe what I think the argument somebody's making is, that doesn't mean I endorse the argument, merely that I'm trying to explain what the argument is. I'm not taking a position on "fault", all things considered.

by mst 8y ago

bena 8y ago

I will admit to have had you confused with the person I originally asked, so there is some minor conflation there. That's my bad. I asked them a direct question and you responded instead. They said it was his blocklist that he put these people on. And that simply by being on his blocklist, their lives were ruined. That's not the same story you told me. And ignores the part where Harper was promoting her blocklist as a superior version of ggautoblocker. She encouraged people to promote it. So to say it's his fault for promoting a "personal" list also feels hollow. He trusted Randi. That was a mistake. People blindly trusted the list he promoted. That was also a mistake. There's a degree of personal responsibility that everybody who used that list without verifying the content shoulders.

mst 8y ago
The story I told is the story as I understand it, from reading a smattering of articles from various viewpoints. I suspect many people have largely heard the story from a giant game of telephone on twitter, and as such details and nuance have been lost and distorted. Note that when I describe what I think the argument somebody's making is, that doesn't mean I endorse the argument, merely that I'm trying to explain what the argument is. I'm not taking a position on "fault", all things considered.