9 ms·

> … we had to pull it back. No, you didn't. The Right Thing™ to do would be to have simply told the complainers to carry on with their lives. There's no reas

by zeveb 8y ago

> … we had to pull it back. No, you didn't. The Right Thing™ to do would be to have simply told the complainers to carry on with their lives. There's no reason to give hecklers a veto.

jedberg 8y ago
That's a lovely naive position to take when you aren't dealing with the fierce backlash of a vocal community. It was in fact that position I started from -- live and let live. What I learned is that you can't always take that position. Sometimes you have to take a moral stand, and that will necessarily be in opposition to some people's points of view (sometimes including your own point of view). But it's what you have to do when you're managing a community of users with differing opinions.
- moate 8y ago
  The "throw your hands up in the air and blame it on the guy who actually made the offensive thing with your IP" approach has failed SO many times. I agree with you entirely, you're going to be making the morally wrong choice to someone no matter what you do. I think this is why so many people limit what can be done with their IP. Of course there's a double standard. That's how civil societies exist. People will always make equivalencies (false and fair) and get bent out of shape because of the contradicting choices on how each is handled.
- jlawson 8y ago
  So whatever community can be the most "vocal" and generate the most "fierce backlash" gets to control the expression of everyone else. No principles, only power. This does seem to describe Internet culture, all right. It only happens because people in your position so often roll over in the face of pressure from any group who can make noise, even inconsequentially, even for a short time. And then you go and say you "can't" take the position of treating people evenhandedly. Yes you can. It may be challenging but you could've done it. You chose the easy path; don't act like you had no choice. Take responsibility for violating your principles. (I say this as someone who has faced such backlash on the Internet and succeeded. The sleepless night are real but once people realize you're not a pushover they move to easier targets.) EDIT: For an example of a major company having a spine in such a situation, consider Valve's recent decision not to be the taste police with regards to what goes on Steam.
  - moate 8y ago
    Whatever your moral point, someone has the opposite moral point. If you cave to one, your stand for the other and vice versa. Also, if a creator wants to censor someone's use of their IP, anyone telling the creator that they're being the thought police is being a dunce. At some point the creator's desire for freedom of speech and the secondary party's freedom of speech will be in direct opposition. Someone has to lose, and its their IP, so the general understanding is that they can take their bat and ball and not let you play with them.
    - jlawson 8y ago
      >Whatever your moral point, someone has the opposite moral point. People have many more than just the opposite moral point - they also have moral points that interact with any discussion in countless different ways, from different points of view, with different reasoning. >If you cave to one, your stand for the other and vice versa. Nonsense. There are more than two positions on any given issue. Here are three on Reddit/guns. 1. Allowing the Reddit alien on guns is wrong because guns are bad and allowing it is endorsement. 2. Allowing the Reddit alien on guns is right because guns are good. 3. Allowing the Reddit alien on guns is right because Reddit is a company that doesn't take positions on issues like this, because it's good to treat participants even-handedly when you're managing a diverse community. This applies even if you think they're wrong. Whether or not guns are good or bad is irrelevant in determining whether the logo usage should be allowed, because the higher principle of even-handedness takes precedence. If you don't go with 3, you're saying that Reddit is morally endorsing everything they allow on their platform. Which also means the phone company, credit card company, banks, and even the government are endorsing everything they don't use their power to prevent. Which is a view that drives straight to a world of pure tyranny - no principle, only power, with every actor using all available levers of control to suppress any view they disagree with. That's Lenin's "Who, whom" view of politics, and we see how it ended when he gained power. No, no. Live and let live. Treaty of Westphalia. We figured this out 300 years ago; let's not forget the lessons please.

by zeveb 8y ago

> … we had to pull it back. No, you didn't. The Right Thing™ to do would be to have simply told the complainers to carry on with their lives. There's no reason to give hecklers a veto.

jedberg 8y ago

That's a lovely naive position to take when you aren't dealing with the fierce backlash of a vocal community. It was in fact that position I started from -- live and let live. What I learned is that you can't always take that position. Sometimes you have to take a moral stand, and that will necessarily be in opposition to some people's points of view (sometimes including your own point of view). But it's what you have to do when you're managing a community of users with differing opinions.

moate 8y ago
The "throw your hands up in the air and blame it on the guy who actually made the offensive thing with your IP" approach has failed SO many times. I agree with you entirely, you're going to be making the morally wrong choice to someone no matter what you do. I think this is why so many people limit what can be done with their IP. Of course there's a double standard. That's how civil societies exist. People will always make equivalencies (false and fair) and get bent out of shape because of the contradicting choices on how each is handled.
jlawson 8y ago
So whatever community can be the most "vocal" and generate the most "fierce backlash" gets to control the expression of everyone else. No principles, only power. This does seem to describe Internet culture, all right. It only happens because people in your position so often roll over in the face of pressure from any group who can make noise, even inconsequentially, even for a short time. And then you go and say you "can't" take the position of treating people evenhandedly. Yes you can. It may be challenging but you could've done it. You chose the easy path; don't act like you had no choice. Take responsibility for violating your principles. (I say this as someone who has faced such backlash on the Internet and succeeded. The sleepless night are real but once people realize you're not a pushover they move to easier targets.) EDIT: For an example of a major company having a spine in such a situation, consider Valve's recent decision not to be the taste police with regards to what goes on Steam.
- moate 8y ago
  Whatever your moral point, someone has the opposite moral point. If you cave to one, your stand for the other and vice versa. Also, if a creator wants to censor someone's use of their IP, anyone telling the creator that they're being the thought police is being a dunce. At some point the creator's desire for freedom of speech and the secondary party's freedom of speech will be in direct opposition. Someone has to lose, and its their IP, so the general understanding is that they can take their bat and ball and not let you play with them.
  - jlawson 8y ago
    >Whatever your moral point, someone has the opposite moral point. People have many more than just the opposite moral point - they also have moral points that interact with any discussion in countless different ways, from different points of view, with different reasoning. >If you cave to one, your stand for the other and vice versa. Nonsense. There are more than two positions on any given issue. Here are three on Reddit/guns. 1. Allowing the Reddit alien on guns is wrong because guns are bad and allowing it is endorsement. 2. Allowing the Reddit alien on guns is right because guns are good. 3. Allowing the Reddit alien on guns is right because Reddit is a company that doesn't take positions on issues like this, because it's good to treat participants even-handedly when you're managing a diverse community. This applies even if you think they're wrong. Whether or not guns are good or bad is irrelevant in determining whether the logo usage should be allowed, because the higher principle of even-handedness takes precedence. If you don't go with 3, you're saying that Reddit is morally endorsing everything they allow on their platform. Which also means the phone company, credit card company, banks, and even the government are endorsing everything they don't use their power to prevent. Which is a view that drives straight to a world of pure tyranny - no principle, only power, with every actor using all available levers of control to suppress any view they disagree with. That's Lenin's "Who, whom" view of politics, and we see how it ended when he gained power. No, no. Live and let live. Treaty of Westphalia. We figured this out 300 years ago; let's not forget the lessons please.