2 ms·

>I don't see why you assume it wasn't "on the record". Because it's a nice thing to do when you're dealing with private citizens. We're talking ethics here, a

>I don't see why you assume it wasn't "on the record". Because it's a nice thing to do when you're dealing with private citizens. We're talking ethics here, and the thing about ethics is that they can essentially be boiled down to "don't be an asshole". This blog post can seriously hurt someone who never asked for it and doesn't deserve it. Why not be a little bit fair? If you're not sure if it's "off the record", ask. If you can't ask because the party 'muted' you (!!), assume it is 'off the record' - why? Because that's the ethical thing to do. I look at this author, and all I see is a bully. It's good that you always have the presence of mind to censor yourself accordingly. Clearly the Googler made a big mistake because he didn't expect somebody to write an entire blog post from some off-the-cuff remarks he made in a chat room. >Do I think DO should claim editorial control over it? They don't. They didn't change his blog post. They asked this guy to anonymize his post because it looks like slander and defamation which is against their TOS. That's how I interpret it as well. AND IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO!

leephillips 13y ago
"all I see is a bully." I think that's a good word for him. Unfortunately, this is the way many journalists act much of the time - exactly how they create "stories" out of nothing. I guess while playing journalist this guy forgot that the didn't have the resources of a news organization to back him up, and now he has to fend for himself.
- chillingeffect 13y ago
  Hmm. It's not really about having the resources of a news organization. The "resources" are the inertia and hard-won philosophical reasoning behind having a free press. An individual's free speech has just the same amount of weight behind it as a large organization's. So he's hardly fending for himself - he has the backing of all those who support free speech behind him. There are rather many of us. Also, if your opinion of journalists is that many of them act this way, may I respectively suggest that it would benefit you to upgrade your news sources?
  - macspoofing 13y ago
    Except this isn't a free speech issue. Just like Reddit disallowing the identifications of individuals in certain kinds of stories is not a free speech issue. There are no free speech issues when a company does not wish to be associated with certain kinds of discourse on their servers. DO may have policies against hosting sites with hate speech, or pornographic content - that's ok, even though neither is illegal. This guy clearly crossed a line with the content and tone of his blog post. I think DO is being reasonable.
    - makomk 13y ago
      Now imagine if every hosting provider and internet provider had the same policy, such that it was essentially impossible to discuss many viewpoints and ideas via the internet (which is the best - arguably even the only - avenue most people have to disseminate their views to a wider audience). That pretty substantially restricts the kinds of speech that can actually be communicated effectively. Indeed, part of the reason why hosting providers are under such pressure to have anti-hate-speech provisions is because it will make disseminating those views difficult.
    - Goladus 13y ago
      There are no free speech issues when a company does not wish to be associated with certain kinds of discourse on their servers. As usual, it's difficult to discuss this when there's no distinction between first-amendment style free speech and the general concept of it and various interim consequences. A site like Digital Ocean is a general-purpose hosting provider. As a general-purpose provider, their perspective on censorship and free speech is important to anyone who would be a customer of their service. "How are they going apply their ToS?" is a legitimate and important question to any user of their service. Will they be rigorous and fair? Or Will they be biased towards people who complain? Will they be biased towards certain political factions? Will they be biased towards the whims of their executives? When they apply their ToS, what recourse will you have? What is their appeal process like? In other words, it's a "free speech" issue in the sense of "is Digital Ocean's behavior and policy adequately permissive for the content I want to host?" This guy clearly crossed a line with the content and tone of his blog post. How do you 'cross a line' with tone? If I am looking for a hosting provider, I am not looking for one who takes a complaint at face value, then scans my content carelessly trying to get a feel for the 'tone'. I want a specific, incontrovertible infraction that is fair and explained to as precisely as they are able. Honestly this guy seems like a jerk to me and just from the two posts I've seen I don't like him. But it doesn't matter how I feel, it matters whether he violated the terms of service (both the letter and the spirit).
- cordite 13y ago
  I agree with that. What does an individual do at a time like this? It seems his solution is to try to rally up people in anger and emotion against DO.
Tloewald 13y ago
There are at least two assholes involved in this story. If there were only one there would be no story. I think exposing what people say in the open (not private but also not quite public) isn't exactly something someone who works at google should be complaining about. If "stuff you do online can come back to haunt you" shocks you then you probably shouldn't be working at google (except perhaps as a contractor with no benefits, right?)
- gdrulia 13y ago
  Two assholes? Really? Ok, lets think about it, one of them tells his opinion about certain topic on a chat system which has very small community. Once he notices something fishy going on there, he mutes the other person. The other one has different thoughts about the same topic and tries to get contradicting opinion. Than writes a blog about it in a manner that shows how bad and unfair that opinion is, even though that is really arguable topic. And yet we end up with having to assholes. Quite a careless use of words I would say.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  >There are at least two assholes involved in this story. Whose the other asshole?
  - josephlord 13y ago
    I don't like any of the three participants in the story from this telling of it. Googler expressed fairly unpleasant views, blogger was petty personal and nasty in how he wrote up the story and DO overstepped the mark for an infrastructure service in taking it down. I don't see any winners or heroes here but I don't feel the need to call any of them arseholes either.

leephillips 13y ago

"all I see is a bully." I think that's a good word for him. Unfortunately, this is the way many journalists act much of the time - exactly how they create "stories" out of nothing. I guess while playing journalist this guy forgot that the didn't have the resources of a news organization to back him up, and now he has to fend for himself.

chillingeffect 13y ago
Hmm. It's not really about having the resources of a news organization. The "resources" are the inertia and hard-won philosophical reasoning behind having a free press. An individual's free speech has just the same amount of weight behind it as a large organization's. So he's hardly fending for himself - he has the backing of all those who support free speech behind him. There are rather many of us. Also, if your opinion of journalists is that many of them act this way, may I respectively suggest that it would benefit you to upgrade your news sources?
- macspoofing 13y ago
  Except this isn't a free speech issue. Just like Reddit disallowing the identifications of individuals in certain kinds of stories is not a free speech issue. There are no free speech issues when a company does not wish to be associated with certain kinds of discourse on their servers. DO may have policies against hosting sites with hate speech, or pornographic content - that's ok, even though neither is illegal. This guy clearly crossed a line with the content and tone of his blog post. I think DO is being reasonable.
  - makomk 13y ago
    Now imagine if every hosting provider and internet provider had the same policy, such that it was essentially impossible to discuss many viewpoints and ideas via the internet (which is the best - arguably even the only - avenue most people have to disseminate their views to a wider audience). That pretty substantially restricts the kinds of speech that can actually be communicated effectively. Indeed, part of the reason why hosting providers are under such pressure to have anti-hate-speech provisions is because it will make disseminating those views difficult.
  - Goladus 13y ago
    There are no free speech issues when a company does not wish to be associated with certain kinds of discourse on their servers. As usual, it's difficult to discuss this when there's no distinction between first-amendment style free speech and the general concept of it and various interim consequences. A site like Digital Ocean is a general-purpose hosting provider. As a general-purpose provider, their perspective on censorship and free speech is important to anyone who would be a customer of their service. "How are they going apply their ToS?" is a legitimate and important question to any user of their service. Will they be rigorous and fair? Or Will they be biased towards people who complain? Will they be biased towards certain political factions? Will they be biased towards the whims of their executives? When they apply their ToS, what recourse will you have? What is their appeal process like? In other words, it's a "free speech" issue in the sense of "is Digital Ocean's behavior and policy adequately permissive for the content I want to host?" This guy clearly crossed a line with the content and tone of his blog post. How do you 'cross a line' with tone? If I am looking for a hosting provider, I am not looking for one who takes a complaint at face value, then scans my content carelessly trying to get a feel for the 'tone'. I want a specific, incontrovertible infraction that is fair and explained to as precisely as they are able. Honestly this guy seems like a jerk to me and just from the two posts I've seen I don't like him. But it doesn't matter how I feel, it matters whether he violated the terms of service (both the letter and the spirit).
cordite 13y ago
I agree with that. What does an individual do at a time like this? It seems his solution is to try to rally up people in anger and emotion against DO.

Tloewald 13y ago

There are at least two assholes involved in this story. If there were only one there would be no story. I think exposing what people say in the open (not private but also not quite public) isn't exactly something someone who works at google should be complaining about. If "stuff you do online can come back to haunt you" shocks you then you probably shouldn't be working at google (except perhaps as a contractor with no benefits, right?)

gdrulia 13y ago
Two assholes? Really? Ok, lets think about it, one of them tells his opinion about certain topic on a chat system which has very small community. Once he notices something fishy going on there, he mutes the other person. The other one has different thoughts about the same topic and tries to get contradicting opinion. Than writes a blog about it in a manner that shows how bad and unfair that opinion is, even though that is really arguable topic. And yet we end up with having to assholes. Quite a careless use of words I would say.
macspoofing 13y ago
>There are at least two assholes involved in this story. Whose the other asshole?
- josephlord 13y ago
  I don't like any of the three participants in the story from this telling of it. Googler expressed fairly unpleasant views, blogger was petty personal and nasty in how he wrote up the story and DO overstepped the mark for an infrastructure service in taking it down. I don't see any winners or heroes here but I don't feel the need to call any of them arseholes either.