5 ms·

Er, /baphomet is not "a doxxing board." Or, rather, it's not just a doxxing board. It's also a swatting board, and swatting is illegal in the US. https://stori

by BryantD 12y ago

Er, /baphomet is not "a doxxing board." Or, rather, it's not just a doxxing board. It's also a swatting board, and swatting is illegal in the US. https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/baphomet https://storify.com/a_man_in_black/baphomet You are also 100% incorrect about "only legitimate stance." Hotwheels needs to be clear about what his guidelines are; as long as it's clear what rules the communities operate under, and as long as people are free to decide whether or not they wish to create a community, it's certainly legitimate to have more restrictive rules. "UGC site" is a red herring. I am creating UGC right now in the form of this post.

Karunamon 12y ago
I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that actual calls to swat people have been deleted on that board. But, I can't say for sure because I don't hang out there, and the events of GamerGate have me applying a shakerfull of salt to any negative press surrounding 8chan. And as far as "incorrect", that is your opinion and it is your own, I have a differing one. I like the idea of a site where the admin has assured that they will not interfere with you unless they have to. Really, did you miss the qualifier "that allows people to set up their own communities"? And since I've hit the posting limit: That is your opinion @zorpner, and nothing I can say will change it. We disagree, vehemently, on the whole "silence is complicity" thing. @bryantd: Because freedom of speech is a guiding principle, a human right, not just a law, and that guiding principle is a higher priority than people talking about societally-disapproved-of-things. The price of following that principle is that people can and will talk about things that some or even most people don't like. The idea of cracking down on people discussing things because you personally find it distasteful is, to me, incredibly offensive. I don't like the idea of neo nazis or places where people post pictures of dead children, but I also don't think someone should have the ability to come in and say "No, you can't talk about that." @bryantd again: Ah, gotcha. In that case, no, I don't think there is a strictly different moral obligation in play. I get that curated spaces are a thing, and I don't have an issue with those, but the problem I see a lot is that there are N stated rules in a space, but N+X unwritten rules and breaking them gets you in trouble, and oftentimes you don't know what you did wrong. This leads to the superficial projection of freedom of speech and an open community, but in reality, that is not what's happening. I.e. deception. And in an atmosphere of deception, censorship follows. Censorship, to me, being a greater evil than whatever someone could possibly be talking about. That's the "why", because the moral obligation of free expression, IMO, is a few levels higher than most others. Heck, even here on HN, this is a problem (though not NEAR as much as some other sites, thanks to Dang and PG and the rest). But still, we have shadowbans and post timeouts and opaque algorithms that kill posts before anyone has had a chance to read them.
- zorpner 12y ago
  I like the idea of a site where the admin has assured that they will not interfere with you unless they have to. If an admin chooses not to interfere, that does not absolve them from the responsibility of what happens on their site. If they had the power to remove it, and did not, they share in the blame for the consequences.
  - sroerick 12y ago
    That's absurd. Are phone companies liable when criminals use their products to talk on the phone? Are the developers of encryption liable for ISIS encrypting their calls? Call me when CNN and Fox News get sued for lying, and when Sony gets prosecuted for starting trivial lawsuits to stifle free speech. Then we can talk about censoring internet forums.
    - zorpner 12y ago
      First off, I'm talking about culpability, not liability. Conflating morality and legality (not to mention censorship and providing a platform) makes your entire post nonsensical. And in the context of culpability, it's obvious that such a relationship only exists when the individual with the power to prevent bad action is aware of the action. So in this case, where Hotwheels is not only a participant in the relevant boards on 8chan but has expressed approval of what's happening, it's easy to hold him culpable (and probably liable as well, for what it's worth).
- BryantD 12y ago
  There's a pretty substantial difference between "I like the idea of a site..." and "only legitimate stance to take." Can you explain why you think granting the ability to create a sub-board generates a different moral obligation, in your opinion, than granting the ability to create a new post?
  - lmm 12y ago
    Localism, or some generalization of that; it also feels like there's a kind of "principle of least privilege" here. Moderation should happen at the most local level where it's practical, with a community enforcing its own rules according to its own culture. Once you're offering a platform for people to build distinct communities on, you're assuming the position of an infrastructure provider or a government, and you have some of the obligations that go along with that. Allowing posts on a single board doesn't carry that obligation, because that's not what you're offering; the individual posts aren't and aren't meant to be communities with their own culture. I would still say that moderators have a moral obligation to be open, accountable, and representative of the community they moderate (even if it's a community they didn't want or ask for), and HN does a particularly poor job in this regard (lobste.rs demonstrates that it's possible to run a site like this with an open moderator log).

by BryantD 12y ago

Karunamon 12y ago

I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that actual calls to swat people have been deleted on that board. But, I can't say for sure because I don't hang out there, and the events of GamerGate have me applying a shakerfull of salt to any negative press surrounding 8chan. And as far as "incorrect", that is your opinion and it is your own, I have a differing one. I like the idea of a site where the admin has assured that they will not interfere with you unless they have to. Really, did you miss the qualifier "that allows people to set up their own communities"? And since I've hit the posting limit: That is your opinion @zorpner, and nothing I can say will change it. We disagree, vehemently, on the whole "silence is complicity" thing. @bryantd: Because freedom of speech is a guiding principle, a human right, not just a law, and that guiding principle is a higher priority than people talking about societally-disapproved-of-things. The price of following that principle is that people can and will talk about things that some or even most people don't like. The idea of cracking down on people discussing things because you personally find it distasteful is, to me, incredibly offensive. I don't like the idea of neo nazis or places where people post pictures of dead children, but I also don't think someone should have the ability to come in and say "No, you can't talk about that." @bryantd again: Ah, gotcha. In that case, no, I don't think there is a strictly different moral obligation in play. I get that curated spaces are a thing, and I don't have an issue with those, but the problem I see a lot is that there are N stated rules in a space, but N+X unwritten rules and breaking them gets you in trouble, and oftentimes you don't know what you did wrong. This leads to the superficial projection of freedom of speech and an open community, but in reality, that is not what's happening. I.e. deception. And in an atmosphere of deception, censorship follows. Censorship, to me, being a greater evil than whatever someone could possibly be talking about. That's the "why", because the moral obligation of free expression, IMO, is a few levels higher than most others. Heck, even here on HN, this is a problem (though not NEAR as much as some other sites, thanks to Dang and PG and the rest). But still, we have shadowbans and post timeouts and opaque algorithms that kill posts before anyone has had a chance to read them.

zorpner 12y ago
I like the idea of a site where the admin has assured that they will not interfere with you unless they have to. If an admin chooses not to interfere, that does not absolve them from the responsibility of what happens on their site. If they had the power to remove it, and did not, they share in the blame for the consequences.
- sroerick 12y ago
  That's absurd. Are phone companies liable when criminals use their products to talk on the phone? Are the developers of encryption liable for ISIS encrypting their calls? Call me when CNN and Fox News get sued for lying, and when Sony gets prosecuted for starting trivial lawsuits to stifle free speech. Then we can talk about censoring internet forums.
  - zorpner 12y ago
    First off, I'm talking about culpability, not liability. Conflating morality and legality (not to mention censorship and providing a platform) makes your entire post nonsensical. And in the context of culpability, it's obvious that such a relationship only exists when the individual with the power to prevent bad action is aware of the action. So in this case, where Hotwheels is not only a participant in the relevant boards on 8chan but has expressed approval of what's happening, it's easy to hold him culpable (and probably liable as well, for what it's worth).
BryantD 12y ago
There's a pretty substantial difference between "I like the idea of a site..." and "only legitimate stance to take." Can you explain why you think granting the ability to create a sub-board generates a different moral obligation, in your opinion, than granting the ability to create a new post?
- lmm 12y ago
  Localism, or some generalization of that; it also feels like there's a kind of "principle of least privilege" here. Moderation should happen at the most local level where it's practical, with a community enforcing its own rules according to its own culture. Once you're offering a platform for people to build distinct communities on, you're assuming the position of an infrastructure provider or a government, and you have some of the obligations that go along with that. Allowing posts on a single board doesn't carry that obligation, because that's not what you're offering; the individual posts aren't and aren't meant to be communities with their own culture. I would still say that moderators have a moral obligation to be open, accountable, and representative of the community they moderate (even if it's a community they didn't want or ask for), and HN does a particularly poor job in this regard (lobste.rs demonstrates that it's possible to run a site like this with an open moderator log).