4 ms·

This is an open letter expressing how Tumblr's decision will be harmful to a subset of its users. As a commenter, there are several "good faith" ways to respon

This is an open letter expressing how Tumblr's decision will be harmful to a subset of its users. As a commenter, there are several "good faith" ways to respond to this: - I disagree, this is not harmful to these users, because ____ - I agree that this is harmful to these users, but that is outweighed by ____ - I don't know whether or not this is harmful to these users, and I'm looking to learn more about their concerns. You seem to have taken another route, "I don't understand this concern at all, nor do I intend to educate myself on it, and instead I'm going to rant about how these people are bad for society". This doesn't strike me as productive. (Also: you're arguing against an imaginary position. Nobody is claiming that Tumblr doesn't have the right to decide what content is allowed on their platform. The argument isn't that tumblr can't do this. This is just shedding a light on the harm this decision will cause)

walrus66 8y ago
Or, alternatively, my comment reflects a radically different value system than you, which you have chosen to be offended by, and thus consider to be in bad faith. From my point of view, our society should not be catering to the whims of everyone who claims harm, in this case, a niche porn community on a website that wants to change its business model. Another example, the dutch mohammed cartoon competition being shut down, which I would consider to be a failing of society. That you actually refer to this is “harm” is the basis for my comment.
- verroq 8y ago
  >our society should not be catering to the whims of everyone who claims harm I guess the whim of the slaves claiming harm shouldn’t be catered to. Clearly, anyone complaining about existing power structures are whingers and their opinions must be ignored. That is some real bootlicking.
  - walrus66 8y ago
    Can you clarify that? You’re saying this is a human rights violation equivalent to slavery? Did you take your meds today?
    - verroq 8y ago
      No I am saying that if dang bans you from HN for a particularly unjustified reason you should just bend over and take it. After all, nobody should cater the whims of the party claiming harm.
      - walrus66 8y ago
        Well, yeah, I would probably go on with my day if I got banned from an internet website, because that’s what people who are not psychotic do. You should consider getting help.
- scrollaway 8y ago
  It seems to me you're the one "choosing to be offended by" the article here. As others have said, it is not saying "Tumblr can't do this". The only two reactions against "Tumblr is banning porn" I've seen are: "This is a dumb move that will kill Tumblr which has a huge adult following" and "The NSFW filters suck and will be overly broad, banning far more than porn". Both are correct. Tumblr has existed for over a decade and the porn fight is one they've had before, and lost for those same reasons. I don't believe Oath cares enough about Tumblr to be even sort of careful with it, so they're just bulldozing the place into the most standard corporate-approved "social media network" they can think of. (Disclaimer: I don't care about Tumblr at all, but I've seen enough of these uninspired acquire&bulldoze ploys to recognize them now)
- ArchTypical 8y ago
  There's nothing "alternative" about your position. There are 3 good faith positions phrased in a casual manner which make no assumptions (except there is a caveat about the effect to users only). > I disagree, this is not harmful to these users, because ___ (I have a) radically different value system than you There, you chose one.

walrus66 8y ago

Or, alternatively, my comment reflects a radically different value system than you, which you have chosen to be offended by, and thus consider to be in bad faith. From my point of view, our society should not be catering to the whims of everyone who claims harm, in this case, a niche porn community on a website that wants to change its business model. Another example, the dutch mohammed cartoon competition being shut down, which I would consider to be a failing of society. That you actually refer to this is “harm” is the basis for my comment.

verroq 8y ago
>our society should not be catering to the whims of everyone who claims harm I guess the whim of the slaves claiming harm shouldn’t be catered to. Clearly, anyone complaining about existing power structures are whingers and their opinions must be ignored. That is some real bootlicking.
- walrus66 8y ago
  Can you clarify that? You’re saying this is a human rights violation equivalent to slavery? Did you take your meds today?
  - verroq 8y ago
    No I am saying that if dang bans you from HN for a particularly unjustified reason you should just bend over and take it. After all, nobody should cater the whims of the party claiming harm.
    - walrus66 8y ago
      Well, yeah, I would probably go on with my day if I got banned from an internet website, because that’s what people who are not psychotic do. You should consider getting help.
scrollaway 8y ago
It seems to me you're the one "choosing to be offended by" the article here. As others have said, it is not saying "Tumblr can't do this". The only two reactions against "Tumblr is banning porn" I've seen are: "This is a dumb move that will kill Tumblr which has a huge adult following" and "The NSFW filters suck and will be overly broad, banning far more than porn". Both are correct. Tumblr has existed for over a decade and the porn fight is one they've had before, and lost for those same reasons. I don't believe Oath cares enough about Tumblr to be even sort of careful with it, so they're just bulldozing the place into the most standard corporate-approved "social media network" they can think of. (Disclaimer: I don't care about Tumblr at all, but I've seen enough of these uninspired acquire&bulldoze ploys to recognize them now)
ArchTypical 8y ago
There's nothing "alternative" about your position. There are 3 good faith positions phrased in a casual manner which make no assumptions (except there is a caveat about the effect to users only). > I disagree, this is not harmful to these users, because ___ (I have a) radically different value system than you There, you chose one.