Onward!

Any fool with a pseudonym can make himself feel tough by tossing out insults. Would he (or she) do the same if you could identify them?

Doesn’t seem to stop the TV pundits much.

@macbeach, I don’t think calling for an end to anonymity is really the issue — I wrote a post about it over the weekend here. The issue isn’t what name people use to comment and/or blog; the issue is whether or not there’s accountability behind that name.

I used to comment here as DrumsNWhistles; now I use my real first name. Either way readers had a way to find me, via the email/contact link on my blog. They could also rely upon the fact that someone knew me to be a real person by virtue of the fact that I had valid data on file with my web host and registrar.

And to Robert: The issue is trust. Who or how to know who to trust. Not legislation; not more court cases. Just developing some core level guidelines about whether or not a blog is trustworthy. I wrote a set of blog principles (self-adopted) when I entered the payperpost fray. They’ve been helpful to me in many ways. Whether they are to anyone else, I don’t know. But they help guide ME on decisions I might make about what to say or how to say it.

@john welch — the difference with the pundits is that there is still a way to hold them accountable. Just because we don’t — well, that’s another story entirely.

The ‘cute kitty’ comment bothered me a lot, because I think such comments trivialise women, and are part and parcel with the more salacious or intimidating comments that have been the focus of this affair. That CNN and others don’t see the irony is discouraging, and it confirms my feeling that the issues being dealt with are cultural rather than specific to the blogosphere.

I guess fate would have it that Scoble’s appearance on CNN was an April Fool’s joke, after all.

See how the Kathy Sierra poll is going (via flic)

Didn’t this case involve known “anonymous” accounts being hijacked by unknown “anonymous” posters? I don’t see how anything would be different if it was “rageboy” or Chris Locke.

Also, aren’t MS Gamertags getting hijacked because of non-anonymous user ids and blogs?

Solve one problem, create another.

Now you understand why fewer and fewer people go into politics. They have to deal with the same stuff…in spades!

Goebbels:

“Didn’t this case involve known “anonymous” accounts being hijacked by unknown “anonymous” posters? I don’t see how anything would be different if it was “rageboy” or Chris Locke.”

No, this case was about possibly one account being hijacked after a site was created as a place for ‘sarcasm and insult’. The one responsible for the threats and images has not yet been identified, at least, not publicly.

“Solve one problem, create another.”

I disagree. But until we stop shrugging and saying “Ah, such are the ways of the Internet”, no problems will be solved and it’ll just sit there until the next time it runs out of control, which it surely will, particularly in the arena of politics.

Amy Gahran has a great post up on this topic — everyone should read it. Snark at your own risk

The issues of personal safety, free expression, and acceptable online conduct are getting partially obscured by look-at-me efforts at personal validation and even personal assertions of superiority. Someone who went by dunkin’hunk one day might call himself Bob the next day and expect to be regarded as a profile in courage.

“No, this case was about possibly one account being hijacked after a site was created as a place for ’sarcasm and insult’.”

Whether it was one or more than one that doesn’t change the fact that a non-anonymous id wouldn’t have solved the problem.

“I disagree.”

And? You want to go on a non-anonymous crusade. Fine. Pursue it. But don’t proclaim that it won’t create issues. PayPal exists solely to ambiguate an identity from its true source. There are reasons for it. GamerTags ARE being socially engineered because people have lots of non-anonymous info out there. If you want to promote the lack of anonymity, you should at least take the responsibility that comes with that direction, be aware of the resulting issues, and try to address them.

I have no interest in a non-anonymous internet. Particularly if it’s because a few people were offended and insulted.

Unbelievably, when I read about Kathy’s experience, and related my own, men, a professional journalist mocked it and a college professor joined right in.
Blog swarms exist all over the place, on just about every subject, and I don’t think Kathy, or I are targets, it’s anger directed towards women and a locker room mentality; any woman would serve the same purpose for men so inclined.

Incredibly, another man who posted where I was reading felt that Kathy should not have publicized who she felt was responsible for the threats until she was sure- his brother had actually
told me online that I’d better watch out, that my name sounded like edible pantywear to him. This man writes and discusses Kathy’s incident as if that had never happened.

Goebbels,

Where did you ever get the impression that I wanted a non-anonymous internet? I would STILL be anonymous if I hadn’t been outed by an irresponsible, vindictive ‘someone’.

I want an accountable internet, whether or not anonymous.

Robert, I have always believed that good always comes out of bad. The good here is your renewed commitment to pursue the positive… those stories that improve lives and rewarding people who teach you something and/or uplift people and companies. To me this is the opportunity for the silver lining. This represents improved integrity and credibility and in the end gives you more loyal readers and us as readers more inspiring stories (what my marketing model supports).

Sorry… busy day and late to this ….

Maybe I am just old and cranky, but I do not like the idea of laying down quietly, on the basis that bad people might choose to attack otherwise.

One of the great things about the net, since about 2003, is the resurgence of positive thinking, including blogging. Thats not a PollyAnna point – there is a renewed business vigour that is creating new and genuine value, and its predicated on real people working together and that means, self policing the bad people. Thats not the same as censorship, and I believe we all need to get over that hurdle.

Anyhow, welcome back Robert!!

I never read all of the original crap involved. Just caught most of it second hand.

I’m troubled, Robert. Over the fact that I’m MUCH more concerned about the posts – not the comments. About how a SECOND site was started up SOLELY because the FIRST was shut down due to the inability to be moderated.

Those are facts from what I can tell. The posts, however assinine and sophomoric, were legal. However much they crossed a line of morality that I think we ALL can agree to, were still freedom of speech.

And oddly enough, that included the POSTS about your wife.

And yet, the people running the sites… note the plural, because the second one would NEVER have come up without the first being shut down… the people running them are simply not innocent until proven guilty, but innocent of everything?

They bear SOME responsibility. At the very least – the responsibility of being a poor judge of human character, and of poor management of their sites.

Sorry, I haven’t seen three of them say ANYTHING like that yet.

DaveD: I agree with your sentiments. I just thought enough “punishment” had been handed out for the people involved that I didn’t need to rub salt in the wounds. And all three have apologized to me and Maryam directly, so I know they feel awful about the part they played in this whole thing.

No one should propose standards of accountability that would not apply to web users of all ages and levels of knowledge and experience. No one should demand the production of personal information without addressing the likely consequences of the exposure of that personal information to the universe of web users, some of whom even use automated information-gathering tools to assist them in their hunting. Yes, responsibility is important.

No. I’m sorry, I have to comment a second time – now that I’ve read Chris Locke’s non-apology for anything. Since he hasn’t posted much, nor allows comments, let me post here:

“Thanks to Tim O’Reilly, Kathy and I began exchanging email last Wednesday. I think it’s fair to say we were both surprised by the results. On neither side was there any evidence of the acrimony that has been so widely attributed to both of us. By the next day we were speaking on the phone — for nearly two hours. If you had overheard our conversation, you would have thought us old friends. While some publications were speculating about various permutations on men who hate women on the web — including the suggestion that anything I could possibly say was “hysterical masculine self-pity posing as righteous indignation” — Kathy and I were swapping industry war stories… and laughing! You had to be there to believe it.”

Okay. And this means… what? That you believe Kathy views you as a friend of some sort? How self-centric of you Chris! Way to speak of empathy!

And that’s only the intro….

“It’s true we laughed, but not at the core issues. No one was laughing about the offensive words and images that were posted to the blogs I was involved with.”

So you AREN’T friends. But I thought you were after that self-flattering first paragraph. BTW“Some of the things that were posted about her were admittedly frightening, and far beyond tasteless. The post about Maryam Scoble was cruel and disgusting. These postings prompted the decision to delete both blogs (and not, as has been reported, Terms of Service violations, which were assessed retroactively).”

Ah. But One would think deleting a SINGLE blog would be enough. Not for you I see. Continuing on with this phantom olive branch….

Careers and reputations have been seriously injured by a rush to judgement that was often sadly short on evidence of crime or culpability.

Yep. Now we are getting to your self-centered view of all this. Kathy was actually hurt… emotionally. She actually posted images and more. And you? You pulled the site – after the damage was done. Then had the audacity to say it was YOU who was wronged.

Still waiting for some words to the effect that YOU opened that second site with the intent to carry on what the first site became….

“Misogyny is real — and vile. Violence against women is wrong. It must not be tolerated. This issue should be explored and discussed, not swept under the rug, not rationalized away.”

You came close here. But here’s the key question – WHEN did you shut down YOUR site. You know the second one you simply had to start up because that first one was shut down? Before, or after? If you have to ask what I mean – then you really don’t have a clue.

“At the same time, we need to look closely and carefully at the implications for free speech. The First Amendment allows and protects language that many find noxious.”

That pretty much answers my question. I could uote more of your ego-centric ramblings, but I’m sorry – you make me sick. You think you can have somebody POST – POST!!!! – pictures and words like they did on your site – and somehow frame this as First Amendment issues?

Hey, buddy…. I can call you that right? After all, you and Kathy are bestest of buds after that 2 hour phone call you both laughed through.

Hey bud, I’m sorry, but I am STILL waiting for something – anything? – that says you might atually feel you did the slightest bit wrong.

Robert, delete this comment if you must. I haven’t posted anything until tonite about this whole shameful debacle. (I sent a private email to one blogger. But no posts.)

My previous post was out of frustration on things. This? I read what you linked to… after waiting for days to hear SOMETHING out of Chris’ mouth that would make me believe he atually “gets it”. And was promptly upset.

DaveD: I don’t delete comments unless they are really over the line.

Karoli:

If you can’t attach someone to some identity, you don’t have accountability. If you can attach someone to some id, you don’t have anonymity.

hi,

I did see you in CNN (the online video). I dunno about the TV version since I don’t get CNN on my TV. Who has time to watch TV anyway?

Here’s the link to the video: javascript:cnnPlayListVideo(‘/video/tech/2007/03/30/louie.ca.blog.blackout.kgo’,’3′)

sorry about the link to the last one:

Go here: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/

Under the video tag click on more video. Your video appeared on: 1:50 pm March 30, 2007 under the title: “Cyber Threats Spark Protest” (1:36 min video).

It’s lame that I can’t link to it directly. Sorry!

Yes, I am a new commenter and yes, I am using an alias instead of my name . . . because I am female.

I wanted to recommend the book: Why Does He Do That? by Lundy Bancroft, PhD. The byline of it is “Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men”

I think if everyone read that book we could begin to truly shift the misogny and abuse. But right now all cultures are continuing to aid in “The Making of an Abusive Man” (which is the title of chapter 13).

The annominity of the internet is not the issue. It is one small tool that amplifies an issue that is rampant throughout our country. I use the term “our country” intentionally because it literally does not matter what country the reader is in. The issue of the control and abuse of women is international.

# Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime.
# [In the US] Seventy-eight percent of stalking victims are women. Women are significantly more likely than men (60 percent and 30 percent, respectively) to be stalked by intimate partners.
Stats are from: http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/

If anything, I think the anonymity of the internet is helping out the issue in a great way! What we are seeing in the Internet Community is actually more VISIBLE because the anonymity is allowing the writer to voice their thoughts and desired actions in a public way. That sort of sickness goes on all the time but up until recently it has only been occuring behind closed doors and the backseats of cars where no one heard the screams. The outcry of rage at that kind of behavior is what NEEDS TO HAPPEN to make change happen.

Thank you to you Robert and everyone else who is being loud about it. And please seriously take a look at the book. It is a gem and will help anybody and everybody to be there more fully for people like Kathy and the rest of us. With the stats being one out of every three women in the world experiencing some form of abuse – chances are you know many of us – even if you are unaware of it!