Antinous 1043

Teresa gets flak because she brings the hostile tone to this thread by using ad hominems of "stupid" and "blockheads" among other epithets.

It has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman for one and it belies your own judgment to try to insinuate that it's a factor. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact she's in a position of authority either because we accept that BB is not just one person but a community. However, we do expect whatever authority or access she has to be handled in a manner that is consistent with our values of right and wrong when it comes to treating people with fairness. So far, the criticism have squarely been on her actions and words, not her identity, gender, or even impugned authority within BB.

Sure at first, I wanted to know the facts behind the drama. The real issue however shifted from "what did Violet Blue do?" to the ethics behind BB's present stance. The ethics of treating Violet Blue properly, the ethics of treating BoingBoing's brand and hard fought goodwill properly, and the ethics of treating its readership properly.

Many have rightfully dismissed the "censorship" strawman arguments because yes, we get it, this is about a private blog acting on its own blog, not a government repressing communication.

That being said, even private parties and civil actions among non-government agencies can have destructive and chilling effects on speech. This doesn't affect the first amendment right to free speech but it affects and compromises the idea of an open marketplace of ideas nonetheless.

I'm talking about the idea of people being "blackballed". Actors, directors, writers, journalists, and myriad of content-creators sometimes fall out of favor from the content-distributors - movie studios, publishing houses, newspapers. Even movie studios and magazines do not go back to torch their own archives of past works to exclude certain players from greater public view.

Since we'll never know Violet's transgression and whether it merits the treatment given to her name and work, that's a judgment outside this scope. However, the idea of ethics is not to judge within the mere narrow limitations of what is allowed by the law or forbidden by the law. There is no question as to BB's right to unpublish VB. As many prior posters commented - it does boil down to what is the right thing to do.

The popular tide is rightly turning against BB because it is perceived as the larger, more influencial entity, bullying an as of yet presumed innocent Violet Blue and giving the audience no real explanation for a public demonstration of its power to unpublish someone.

BB set up high expectations for itself and from its readers. We expect the classless pundits on political forums to pull moves like this but not you.

We've seen colorful spicy language from moderators and articles before but now it has turned ugly and hostile. We're being called "stupid" and "blockheads" for questionning your actions. For many, the questionning is as much a benevolent attempt to prevent further ruin on BB's name. It may be confusing to distinguish that from the others who come by to pick up rocks because they merely enjoy doing so.

Only you can prevent forest fires. Well, we're past that, we have a fire. Only you can put it out. That is if you even desire to.

@Fnarf 894 0 yes - BB readers (whether fans or detractors) have been voicing pretty valid concerns over this issue in an articulate manner but Teresa's posts have been full of generalized ad hominems, calling readers "stupid", "blockheads", etc...

It's my estimation that she's done more to aggravate and escalate this minor crisis into a medium-size one than anyone else.

This story is rippling through into the major news networks now finding its way through the Los Angeles Times and other major news sources.

BB had the opportunity in the last couple of days to take care of this story so as to protect the integrity of the BB brand and associated goodwill. Instead, it dug in and finds itself in what is and will be remembered as one of the prototypical Epic Fail! moments in PR history that perhaps will be taught as a case study of what not to do in the halls of prestigious business schools.

@Antinous

Using a Ferris Bueller reference to bolster your point is like me responding to you by quoting Carrot Top.

Teresa, you're basically saying:
"I won't tell you but trust me, it's for the best."

And accepting that message is completely unnatural for most healthy skeptical Americans. We aren't about blind trust. We're more about making judgments on our own. So of course there will be backlash in the absence of information.

The real issue here is the quality of PR used in the handling of this issue as well as preserving the integrity of the BB brand idendity. Goodwill for a trademark like this is incredibly fragile and easy to damage.

Regardless of the merits of the BB v Blue conflict, the public image that BB puts forth needs to satisfy a level of acceptability. It's something that BB has failed to address and that is the real reason the goodwill of the brand is in transition right now. It won't take much to push it either way.

The substantive merits of what happened with Violet Blue and BB may be completely trivial and personal in nature, but the process by which the issue was handled is being applied in a manner that sets a precedent. Further down the line, some issue may come up that gives BB pause to "unpublish" another contributor's work and mentions of said contributor. What happens then? Will these targeted surgical removals be done on an ad hoc basis or will there be a public announcement giving notice that it will happen, or does it just happen in the hopes that nobody makes waves for at least a year?
It's not about censorship because censorship is about government exercising force to quiet speech. Clearly, BB's actions are private. What's at stake is the credibility, reputation, and integrity of this blog to be able to successfully defend itself from criticisms of hypocrisy, underhanded actions, and a general unwillingness to accept a level of responsibility that many would presume a public blog like this would have espoused by merit of its success and public visibility.

@Teresa
Wow - for a moderator, you inject a great deal of volatility to the discussion. You can't say that you're actively trying to not trash Violet Blue and then explicitly call her a liar the very next paragraph. I mean you can, but that just makes you seem very disingenuous.

I will not call Teresa incompetent. But obviously Teresa doesn't know what she's doing.

See how comes off?

#529 - that is a good post. I agree with your assessment. BB is caught in a flurry of self contradictions and I don't see it taking the path to solving those problems. It wants to keep growing and establish its credibility yet refuses to admit the responsibilities that come with the territory. It wants transparency to be a standard yet fails to follow its own preachings.

BB is basically saying: Shut up, this is our sandbox, we can do whatever we want to and we will. If you're unhappy about it, then whine about it here in this designated contained area, and if you don't agree with our decision, too bad. We won't give you an explanation because we don't feel you deserve one.

But hey, we're listening.

BB just made Miss Blue an extremely famous personality. Way to go guys. Talk about achieving the exact opposite effect from the stated goal! Bravo!

I had no idea who Violet Blue was until today. Now I'm all curious. I want to know everything there is about her.

Another thing I learned today: BB handles problems like an immature girl in Jr. High.

What was this awful thing that ms. Blue did to deserve banishment from the tribe?
If anything, the silence makes me suspect that it must have been a gigantic transgression. Blue must be the most evil person on earth to shake the BB leadership to not just shun her but erase her entire existence as part of BB. When will we start burning her in effigy and declare a jihad on her and add her to the list below "Salman Rushdie"?

If you love your country, or BB, then don't question "why", simply accept the wisdom of the leadership and trust that they are doing everything in your interest and not at all to cover their asses.

To say BB "removed their own work" when they "unpublished" Violet Blue's words is the kind of spin job of the highest caliber. I salute BB's resolve in keeping the peasants at bay. After all, a private entity run by very astute individuals owes no explanation to the masses. I admire the jackhammering logo of BB as a true symbol of strength as we continue to make this world wonderful by destroying and erasing away those who refuse to conform with our wonderful goals.

BB jumped the shark.

Yes this is a private site and there are owners who have full control about what goes into it, what gets taken out of it, and who gets to write for it. But there is a flipside to this. This private site is sending and transmitting its content to the public. As a member of this viewing public, I have the right to use the means made available by BB to question a decision and ask whether an explanation can be forthcoming about that decision. I am not making a constitutional play for free speech here. I am asking person to bloggers for a clarification that would remove the suspicious of malfeasance on BB's part for what looks to me like a bad move.

What was it about all the past work that lost merit?
How can you tease the public about "something happened" and then simply presume to not explain it? Do you believe that a complete absence of suspicion is the way we should live with each other? I believe a system works because there is a built in amount of distrust and that is why transparency is so helpful in keeping everyone on the same page.

The longer you hide, the worse this is going to get.

Why?

If Ms. Blue did something wrong, that may warrant her present and future removal as a contributor, but why remove her past work? What piece of news came out that invalidates the merit of her past published work?

In 1938, Time Magazine named Adolf Hitler "Man of the year". Well we all know what happened next but Time Magazine did not go back and recant or unpublish that issue. Even if it could have it wouldn't. Instead, the news evolved and we came to understand and judge the world more fully each day with the accruing facts.

For BB to go back and remove Ms. Blue's past work is to me an act that goes beyond what I would expect any organization to engage in. You fire an employee or no longer welcome someone's contribution and that is fine - their future work will no longer be hosted. But their past work? There is something nefarious about that. What is it about the past work that carried the seeds of evil that warrants you to remove them from my view? I would like to exercise my judgment on my own in the fullest exposure of the facts... and I cannot do that now that you're removed those articles.

Also the fact you acknowledge that the articles can be found in internet archiving sites shows me that there's something petty or personal in the way you're doing this. Right now, Ms. Blue sounds like she is a much more interesting personality for having pissed off some bloggers to the point of making them act in such a bitchy manner to her.

Newspapers are also privately owned entities run by an editorial board or even one editor depending on the size of the publication. They can do whatever they want too. They can pull stories, priortize them, fire writers, and print retractions - just like this blog can. But here's the thing - when an event catches the public attention and becomes a bonafide piece of news, which I believe this issue has evolved into, then there's something called journalistic ethics that kicks in.

When you create a blog, what is it for? For BoingBoing, a immensely popular blog, the duties to act in a manner that is consistent with the expectations of the audience and the public interest should be one that BoingBoing acknowledges. Instead of shirking these duties because "we're just a blog", you should own it and act as though you are a responsible organization that gives reasons for the actions you take and act transparently.

If you don't acknowledge at least a duty to act transparently, then you are no better than the right wingers you accuse of engaging in coverups and conspiracies.

The defensive rhetoric I'm seeing here is disappointing. It's like the pro athletes caught doping saying "hey I'm not a role model so don't treat me like one." Well, sorry Boingboing, you are a successful source of news for many and you are full of it if you act surprised about it. Come clean or go home because you will never ever be able to speak credibly when criticizing someone else's lack of 'transparency'.

Calling yourself a "blog" as a defense for exercising lower standards of journalism than a news organization does not persuade me about this event being handled as a complete PR mess for BoingBoing.

No news organization, including Boing Boing due to its well established popular status, can avoid the label of hypocrisy by hiding the facts about what is now a newsworthy issue of interest to the public. Whatever private nature the initial issue was has now become a public interest. Therefore, everyone involved with Boing Boing better look hard and long into its soul as a journalist and make a choice about whether to serve the public's desire to understand the facts and make their own judgments about this news or simply shutter its doors. Because the moment you hold back the news like this and hide behind platitudes, you can no longer credibly zealously demand the truth for the sources you go out and report on.

News is pain. If you can't take it, don't bother dishing it out.

Yet another pointless juxtaposition of form and function where each factor is compromised for the sake of the other. Well done humans, another futile venture into forgetable cleverness. I will eat all your souls.

I drove from northern california to LA and right as we were driving through the smelliest part of the drive - across from that ranch full of cattle - the car blows a radiator hose. We were stranded in cow shit smell city for a while. The car could have brokend down ANYWHERE else and it would have been infinitely better. I had that car crushed.

I see Florida is getting some competition from Arkansas.

How is blocking photo-taking of public places effective as a means to thwart terrorism??? I mean come the hell on - if some crazies want to blow up a target and manage to smuggle all manner of contraband explosives or choreograph some nefarious plan to hurt people, don't you think they'd be able to obtain anything and everything they need without any problem whatsoever? Nowadays you can disguise a camera into any hidden spot and you can snap away incognito with no problem.

When you take a picture of the subway, you are stealing its soul inside your sorcery box. Theft of souls is in violation of the California state penal code and is classified as grand larceny, of the spiritual kind punishable under the full extent of the law.

ironically, after the lifesaving drug has been successfully delivered, its sharp edged delivery vehicle will kill you.

I just watched the youtube vid for this project. It's so tiresome to watch a bunch of whiney non-professionals who have never ever made a real movie talk big about how Hollywood does it wrong and how they're going to save the industry by delivering a groundbreaking way to make movies. These dotcom bubble rejects should claim to free Tibet and cure AIDS too while they're at it.

I was really debating whether to add my 2c here but what the hell (haha!). I'd like to say DC is my town but honestly, I'm more of a Burbank California guy myself. I don't know if L'Enfant designed the DC roadmap in my honor but I personally didn't have anything to do with it. One thing you have to realize is that I don't really deal with government. They're kind of their own institution and the rule was that God and I were gonna stay out of that part of the human world. But honestly, I'm starting to get pissed off that x-ians are starting to infiltrate the halls of power and using biblical charters to guide policy. Funny enough, the stuff they pull in God's name ends up helping me out. Poetic justice is what I call it.