5 ms·

> Then came a threat. An account with a much larger following DM'd her and told her to take down the sign, or they would post about it to their local artist com

> Then came a threat. An account with a much larger following DM'd her and told her to take down the sign, or they would post about it to their local artist community. The person offered to help her find an artist to pay to make a new sign, or else they would post about it. > They gave her a day to "think about it." When this is sort of behavior that the "good guys" advance then it's hard not to expect a "bad guy" with money to show up on the scene and thwart it.

ratelimitsteve 10d ago
why is talking about this with their community a threat?
- Footkerchief 10d ago
  "Threat" is a correct term for an attempt to compel action via potential negative consequences.
  - brandon272 10d ago
    "Nice business you've got here, shame if something happened to it"
  - free_bip 9d ago
    By that definition all laws are threats. And indeed, the fallacy here seems to be assuming that threat = bad.
    - brandon272 9d ago
      Laws are threats. The difference is that we empower the government to threaten us to maintain social order, we do not empower individuals to threaten each other.
- chucksta 10d ago
  Its implied the talk is to rally the troops not gather general opinion
- jrflowers 10d ago
  It literally is not. You can maybe phrase it to sort of sound like a threat but “I’m going to share your public ad” is never a threat. It’s like if you angrily yell “I’m going to come to a complete stop at this upcoming stop sign!” in a threatening voice and then do that, it wasn’t a threat. Great. That’s what the sign is for. That’s what everyone wants you to do.
  - orangedog 10d ago
    In the context of how it was done, saying that they would give them a list of people and a day to think it over, it really is a threat, it's a kind of extortion.
    - free_bip 9d ago
      You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what extortion is. It's only extortion if the one extorting is the one receiving the benefit. Hiring a random artist on Fiverr would still make them happy (since the poster is not AI) but would not benefit them in any way.
      - orangedog 9d ago
        That's not what the "threat" said. It said that they would give them a list of people, it isn't obvious that hiring some random would have made them happy. It's not even obvious whether this wasn't just a convenient way to make some money for a friend.
        free_bip 9d ago
        I understand if you don't like how the person phrased it, but the goal of the DM was obviously to get the store owner to replace the AI poster. Assuming that they would have gone on a crusade because they didn't pick a "preferred artist" is pure unsupported speculation on your part.
        orangedog 9d ago
- F3nd0 9d ago
  It’s more about the way it was phrased and presented. Just sharing publicly available facts with your community (or anyone really) is not a problem in itself, but the message does rub me the wrong way. The message’s author is trying to present themselves as someone helpful and compassionate (‘I understand’, ‘I’m trying to help’), but at the same time, they’re one-sidedly setting a firm and short deadline (‘I’ll give you a day’) unprompted and suggesting the café owner strike a deal with one of the people they’re going to recommend. They might have written this with good intentions at heart, but it also wouldn’t feel out of place in a mafia setting (as in ‘do business with us, or else’), so it’s a hard sell. If they really were compassionate and wanted to help, they easily could have suggested to get the owner in touch with some affordable artists and left her with time to mentally deal with the backlash and all. They didn’t need to emphasise how they were going to tell on her like they were about to launch a vendetta smear campaign or something.
  - fakedang 9d ago
    There are no good intentions here. This is the mafia playbook through and through - "It would be a pity if something were to happen to your <insert valuable property or reputation here>".
    - F3nd0 9d ago
      Well, the basic idea of it is not so bad. A business generally wants to keep their customers happy and care for their reputation, so telling a business when we’re unhappy and influencing their reputation is the feedback mechanism we have at our disposal. The important thing is how we go about it, and whether their reputation remains reflective of their actions, or we try and make it worse than it ought to be. We can’t say for certain the author of the message was going to do the latter, but it does not inspire good faith.
      - sippingabonedry 9d ago
        > Well, the basic idea of it is not so bad. It's textbook extortion. > so telling a business when we’re unhappy and influencing their reputation is the feedback mechanism we have at our disposal. Telling a business we're going to fuck you up unless you send our friends work, even by implication, is literally extortion.
- catapart 9d ago
  It's an implied threat, which you can infer from the presentation of the information. For example: You really should listen to me. If you need some time to think it over, I understand. It's a lot to consider and you've got a lot in your plate. I'll check in soon - would tomorrow be okay? If you need more time, just tell me when. vs You really should listen to me. I'll give you a day to think it over before I take further action. Same information, but the latter assumes a position of authority (I, the person in charge, will be the provider of the time you will receive), and then uses that position to provide an ostensible benevolence as a way to mitigate the implied follow up of non-benevolence. The threat is introduced as the power disparity. The person in power has leverage over the less powerful and the threat is that they will use it. Remove the power disparity, and the implication of threat is also removed.
  - free_bip 9d ago
    Unions also use the threat of striking as a leverage point against corporations. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, there seems to be a common fallacy in this thread of "threat = bad". Laws are threats too. You need a more convincing argument than this.
    - catapart 9d ago
      My comment is about how inference and implication can change the result of a message just as much as the content or context. Whatever axe you've got to grind about threats being bad has nothing to do with what I said. Laws are threats. Unions make threats. So what? My point stands. Things that are obviously threats are threats, and things that say the same things in different ways might not be threats.
    - ChickeNES 9d ago
      Yes, we know labor cartels abuse their powers. Doesn't change the point at hand
- jackb4040 9d ago
  This. Based on the headline I was expecting a physical threat on the owner, instead we get a screenshot of them treating it as a learning opportunity and the owner responding in an incredibly condescending way.
  - Viliam1234 9d ago
    "treating it as a learning opportunity" You can learn to pay me, or you can learn the consequences of refusing to pay me. It's your choice of learning opportunity! ;)
- gitaarik 9d ago
  Sharing it with the community could have negative impact on her business. So they were threatening her business success by sharing the info in a certain form with the community.
JumpCrisscross 10d ago
Do we know what said account is? (If I were the coffee shop, I'd seriously weigh how much business versus hassle they're getting from being on Instagram.)
- rimeice 9d ago
  If independent coffee shops serve decent coffee in a good environment with friendly service, they 100% do not need to be on Instagram.
  - quietsegfault 9d ago
    My local coffee shop not only doesn’t have social media, but they don’t even bother decorating the store. Truly unique and amazing coffee, absolutely no design inside. It’s amazing and it really turns people off!
thrance 9d ago
Full original conversation: > Guy: Unfortunately if you won't change it I will be sharing it with the community > Guy: I've love to support you in getting it remade ethically for cheap but if you're not willing to I'm going to let other artists know > Guy: I understand you didn't know at the time, that's ok. That's why I'm trying to help > Guy: I'll give you a day to think about it and I'll get you some names and prices of people who could either make a new poster or write up the board for you > Owner: I have been attacked enough because of this. Disrespected and defeated how people bombarded me with mean comments and DMs. Many have unfollowed me. Go ahead and share if that's what makes you happy. That's "the threat" the article is referring to. Incredibly bad framing, if you hadn't read the conversation you'd think the guy would have threatened to send armed goons, instead he's telling her he'll give the coffee shop bad press in a local image board. Not saying I approve, but it's nowhere near as bad as the people who went off on the title alone think it is.
- mike_hearn 9d ago
  [flagged]
  - thrance 9d ago
    > The sort of people who make these threats are invariably very left wing, and they have a long history of using violence against anyone they view to be doing harm to their protected classes. The overwhelming majority of political violence in this country comes from the right [0]. You are trying to fearmonger by weaving a narrative that includes the mafia and antifa, a narrative that doesn't fit the events described in TFA. There is no credible threat of violence, at most the guy will use his platform to bad-mouth her buisness (questionable, I'll concede). Antifa doesn't throw bricks at coffee shops because they used AI. [0] https://www.csis.org/analysis/left-wing-terrorism-and-political-violence-united-states-what-data-tells-us https://www.csis.org/analysis/left-wing-terrorism-and-politi...
- pu_pe 9d ago
  This is outright harassment. The guy is definitely making a threat, even though he is couching it as some sort of helpful advice.

ratelimitsteve 10d ago

why is talking about this with their community a threat?

Footkerchief 10d ago
"Threat" is a correct term for an attempt to compel action via potential negative consequences.
- brandon272 10d ago
  "Nice business you've got here, shame if something happened to it"
- free_bip 9d ago
  By that definition all laws are threats. And indeed, the fallacy here seems to be assuming that threat = bad.
  - brandon272 9d ago
    Laws are threats. The difference is that we empower the government to threaten us to maintain social order, we do not empower individuals to threaten each other.
chucksta 10d ago
Its implied the talk is to rally the troops not gather general opinion
jrflowers 10d ago
It literally is not. You can maybe phrase it to sort of sound like a threat but “I’m going to share your public ad” is never a threat. It’s like if you angrily yell “I’m going to come to a complete stop at this upcoming stop sign!” in a threatening voice and then do that, it wasn’t a threat. Great. That’s what the sign is for. That’s what everyone wants you to do.
- orangedog 10d ago
  In the context of how it was done, saying that they would give them a list of people and a day to think it over, it really is a threat, it's a kind of extortion.
  - free_bip 9d ago
    You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what extortion is. It's only extortion if the one extorting is the one receiving the benefit. Hiring a random artist on Fiverr would still make them happy (since the poster is not AI) but would not benefit them in any way.
    - orangedog 9d ago
      That's not what the "threat" said. It said that they would give them a list of people, it isn't obvious that hiring some random would have made them happy. It's not even obvious whether this wasn't just a convenient way to make some money for a friend.
      - free_bip 9d ago
        I understand if you don't like how the person phrased it, but the goal of the DM was obviously to get the store owner to replace the AI poster. Assuming that they would have gone on a crusade because they didn't pick a "preferred artist" is pure unsupported speculation on your part.
        orangedog 9d ago
F3nd0 9d ago
It’s more about the way it was phrased and presented. Just sharing publicly available facts with your community (or anyone really) is not a problem in itself, but the message does rub me the wrong way. The message’s author is trying to present themselves as someone helpful and compassionate (‘I understand’, ‘I’m trying to help’), but at the same time, they’re one-sidedly setting a firm and short deadline (‘I’ll give you a day’) unprompted and suggesting the café owner strike a deal with one of the people they’re going to recommend. They might have written this with good intentions at heart, but it also wouldn’t feel out of place in a mafia setting (as in ‘do business with us, or else’), so it’s a hard sell. If they really were compassionate and wanted to help, they easily could have suggested to get the owner in touch with some affordable artists and left her with time to mentally deal with the backlash and all. They didn’t need to emphasise how they were going to tell on her like they were about to launch a vendetta smear campaign or something.
- fakedang 9d ago
  There are no good intentions here. This is the mafia playbook through and through - "It would be a pity if something were to happen to your <insert valuable property or reputation here>".
  - F3nd0 9d ago
    Well, the basic idea of it is not so bad. A business generally wants to keep their customers happy and care for their reputation, so telling a business when we’re unhappy and influencing their reputation is the feedback mechanism we have at our disposal. The important thing is how we go about it, and whether their reputation remains reflective of their actions, or we try and make it worse than it ought to be. We can’t say for certain the author of the message was going to do the latter, but it does not inspire good faith.
    - sippingabonedry 9d ago
      > Well, the basic idea of it is not so bad. It's textbook extortion. > so telling a business when we’re unhappy and influencing their reputation is the feedback mechanism we have at our disposal. Telling a business we're going to fuck you up unless you send our friends work, even by implication, is literally extortion.
catapart 9d ago
It's an implied threat, which you can infer from the presentation of the information. For example: You really should listen to me. If you need some time to think it over, I understand. It's a lot to consider and you've got a lot in your plate. I'll check in soon - would tomorrow be okay? If you need more time, just tell me when. vs You really should listen to me. I'll give you a day to think it over before I take further action. Same information, but the latter assumes a position of authority (I, the person in charge, will be the provider of the time you will receive), and then uses that position to provide an ostensible benevolence as a way to mitigate the implied follow up of non-benevolence. The threat is introduced as the power disparity. The person in power has leverage over the less powerful and the threat is that they will use it. Remove the power disparity, and the implication of threat is also removed.
- free_bip 9d ago
  Unions also use the threat of striking as a leverage point against corporations. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, there seems to be a common fallacy in this thread of "threat = bad". Laws are threats too. You need a more convincing argument than this.
  - catapart 9d ago
    My comment is about how inference and implication can change the result of a message just as much as the content or context. Whatever axe you've got to grind about threats being bad has nothing to do with what I said. Laws are threats. Unions make threats. So what? My point stands. Things that are obviously threats are threats, and things that say the same things in different ways might not be threats.
  - ChickeNES 9d ago
    Yes, we know labor cartels abuse their powers. Doesn't change the point at hand
jackb4040 9d ago
This. Based on the headline I was expecting a physical threat on the owner, instead we get a screenshot of them treating it as a learning opportunity and the owner responding in an incredibly condescending way.
- Viliam1234 9d ago
  "treating it as a learning opportunity" You can learn to pay me, or you can learn the consequences of refusing to pay me. It's your choice of learning opportunity! ;)
gitaarik 9d ago
Sharing it with the community could have negative impact on her business. So they were threatening her business success by sharing the info in a certain form with the community.

JumpCrisscross 10d ago

Do we know what said account is? (If I were the coffee shop, I'd seriously weigh how much business versus hassle they're getting from being on Instagram.)

rimeice 9d ago
If independent coffee shops serve decent coffee in a good environment with friendly service, they 100% do not need to be on Instagram.
- quietsegfault 9d ago
  My local coffee shop not only doesn’t have social media, but they don’t even bother decorating the store. Truly unique and amazing coffee, absolutely no design inside. It’s amazing and it really turns people off!

thrance 9d ago

Full original conversation: > Guy: Unfortunately if you won't change it I will be sharing it with the community > Guy: I've love to support you in getting it remade ethically for cheap but if you're not willing to I'm going to let other artists know > Guy: I understand you didn't know at the time, that's ok. That's why I'm trying to help > Guy: I'll give you a day to think about it and I'll get you some names and prices of people who could either make a new poster or write up the board for you > Owner: I have been attacked enough because of this. Disrespected and defeated how people bombarded me with mean comments and DMs. Many have unfollowed me. Go ahead and share if that's what makes you happy. That's "the threat" the article is referring to. Incredibly bad framing, if you hadn't read the conversation you'd think the guy would have threatened to send armed goons, instead he's telling her he'll give the coffee shop bad press in a local image board. Not saying I approve, but it's nowhere near as bad as the people who went off on the title alone think it is.

mike_hearn 9d ago
[flagged]
- thrance 9d ago
  > The sort of people who make these threats are invariably very left wing, and they have a long history of using violence against anyone they view to be doing harm to their protected classes. The overwhelming majority of political violence in this country comes from the right [0]. You are trying to fearmonger by weaving a narrative that includes the mafia and antifa, a narrative that doesn't fit the events described in TFA. There is no credible threat of violence, at most the guy will use his platform to bad-mouth her buisness (questionable, I'll concede). Antifa doesn't throw bricks at coffee shops because they used AI. [0] https://www.csis.org/analysis/left-wing-terrorism-and-political-violence-united-states-what-data-tells-us https://www.csis.org/analysis/left-wing-terrorism-and-politi...
pu_pe 9d ago
This is outright harassment. The guy is definitely making a threat, even though he is couching it as some sort of helpful advice.