Similarly, I've specifically seen people try to argue that if you're in favor of tolerance, you must tolerate the intolerant. But that's ridiculous--it's not an either/or situation at all. Tolerance must not tolerate anti-tolerance, just as matter cannot tolerate anti-matter, else it be destroyed, no?

Posted June 30, 2008 3:47 PM by kouredios

Patrick, this is the political equivalent of the three-card trick. The whole purpose is to distract you from the main point, which is the issue of public transparency/accountability.

Posted June 30, 2008 3:59 PM by Fragano Ledgister

kouredios, a nice summary of that viewpoint:

"Tolerance isn't a 'kick me' sign, or a 'go ahead and kick whom you want' sign. It's a 'no kicking' sign. Because 'kicking', however defined, harms other people, and harming another person is wrong.

(Posted by Ursula L on May 14, 2008 on the thread "Manifested" at The Slacktivist

Posted June 30, 2008 4:01 PM by Lila

Patrick: Boing Boing has not limited itself to railing against government and corporate censorship. Not by a long shot.

I don't think pointing out the BB is being hypocritical.. and they are..is out of line. They clearly are. Does that negate the good things Cory has done? Of course not. But when you hold yourself up as a friend of transparency and freedom of expression and so forth, as Cory and BB have done, you're going to take big hits when you run your own website like Little Brother.

It's Cory's site, he can do what he wants, but other people are not being unfair when they point out the disconnect.

Posted June 30, 2008 4:02 PM by David Bilek

Uh, I should put out that I'm not a fan of, nor participating in, what appears to be a bunch of people attempting to slip references to V.B. in to the Boing Boing comments just to see how long they stay before being deleted. Seems a little juvenile.

Posted June 30, 2008 4:06 PM by David Bilek

@#4, David:

Exactly! Pointing out kinda-crappy ethics (and even perceptions of poor overall quality or decision making) is an important component of consumer interaction.

Cory thinks so too:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/26/complaining-about-co.html

In the digg story on this, Zora says something I think bears repeating:
"Last year, boingboing wrote about the Society of American Archivists decision to delete their old listserv archives. They generated enough attention that the decision was reversed and the archives were preserved. If they're erasing parts of their own archive for any reason, it's an act of shocking hypocrisy. If they're deliberately scrubbing specific people from their archives, it's a disgusting reversal of all their publicly stated principles."

I wouldn't go so far as to say disgusting, but it is pretty yucky.

Posted June 30, 2008 4:19 PM by Shawn Struck

Lila @3: Nice. I'll have to use that in the future.

Oh, so this is about something going on at BB, then. Off to see...

Posted June 30, 2008 4:20 PM by kouredios

Could you be more specific in what way Cory (or BoungBoing) is supposedly being hypocritical w/r/t the Little Brother site? I admit it seems unlikely to me.

Posted June 30, 2008 4:21 PM by Scraps

There are a multitude of problems with the rationale behind your argument, Patrick, assuming it's what most people are interpreting it as, regarding Boing Boing's removal of Violet Blue's posts:

Persons who are against political censorship and corporate malfeasance are not for that reason obliged to live their entire personal and professional lives in a goldfish bowl.

The vast majority of commenters on this article not speaking about obligation, i.e., most everyone recognizes that Boing Boing has no obligational requirement foisted upon it. They are speaking about hypocritism as it relates to morality. In short, if you consistently advocate against censorship and for openness and transparency, to engage in clandestine editing of your past (especially when you have specifically argued for the maintenance of archives, i.e. last year's archivsts listserv story) is hypocritical and as such is morally wrong. I do not need to know the intimate secrets of Cory, Mark, Xeni, David, or Teresa. I do expect that if they stand up and say, "An organization should be run in such-and-such a way," that they run their organization in accordance with those same principles.

Believing that public utilities ought to be accountable to the public does not make one into a public utility, no matter how hard anyone tries to spin it that way.

Boing Boing has consistently advocated for private agencies and companies to be accountable to certain things it felt to be morally good, i.e., transparency, openness, and not disappearing things in the middle of the night. As said above, few are saying that BoingBoing is a public utility that is legally required and obligated to keep its archives untouched. If that's all you're arguing, you're merely saying a statement most people already agree with. What the vast majority of the extant criticism is about is that the action of "disappearing" Violet Blue's posts from the archive with no transparency, notice, or openness is an action directly contrary to several principles BoingBoing has routinely advocated and epsoused over the years, and as such is a highly hypocritical action that deserves scorn.

Advocating “transparency” for government proceedings, or for the beneficiaries of chartered monopolies and public largesse, doesn’t oblige the advocate to be “transparent” in every personal or artistic decision they themselves make.

Again, a substitution of a straw man for the real argument. Boing Boing has not, over its past, solely attacked governments, "chartered monopolies," and "beneficiaries of ... public largesse". They've criticized authors, leaders of professional organizations (SFWA, etc.), non-monopoly companies (Apple and MS are big but each is not a monopoly, especially given Apple's relatively small market share), and many others.

Boing Boing has, over the years, earned a great deal of respect, supportive cheers, and agreement for its actions of criticizing all — not a strictly limited subset of individuals legally obligated not to practice censorship, but all — of those who would be opaque and censorious and practice actions that alter records in the dead of night. Yet they themselves are, when it is convenient for them, being opaque and censorious and altering records in the dead of night.

They may not have any legal requirement that they not do what they're doing, but to suggest that what they're doing is not laughably hypocritical nor morally wrong is a highly difficult argument to make, and you've made nowhere near a convincing case here.

Posted June 30, 2008 4:25 PM by Mike Harris

Oh give me a break. That quoted comment from Zora has enough red herrings for a stew. It is such a bad faith argument that it's clear refuting it argument by slanted argument would only generate more variants.

I think I get the idea now, David; you needn't take me up on my request.

Posted June 30, 2008 4:25 PM by Scraps

David Bilek, you're being long on assertion and short on demonstration. Exactly what do you think BB has done that amounts to running their web site like a police state?

Posted June 30, 2008 4:26 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Did... Did you just try to spin this? In what way is it strange for people to take issue with what seems to be censorship from an organization that has vocally opposed censorship?

Using the same absurd logic you've just used one could say "Just because you oppose the death penalty doesn't mean you are obliged not to kill anyone if you are not an executioner." (And I'm not even going into the absurdity of your implication that BoingBoing has only ever opposed censorship from the government. How on earth you're able to even type that with a straight face is beyond me.) The fact is that actions invite reactions from one's audience. I'll happily agree that leaping to the conclusion of censorship given the dearth of information is uncalled for, but your response makes it seem like censorship is precisely what it was. If that's the case, how else could you possibly expect the BoingBoing readership to respond?

To put it in terms which more closely resemble your own smug superiority: It ought to be obvious that an organization which vocally opposes censorship will endure criticism when it appears to engage in same, especially when it (so far) refuses to discuss the matter.

There are ways to handle situations like this. One way is with disclosure, honesty and humility. Another is with smugness, obfuscation and spin. That you've chosen the latter is surprising, but telling. One can only hope that you don't represent the viewpoints of all of the BoingBoing staff.

Posted June 30, 2008 4:31 PM by shmegegge

And Mike Harris neatly demonstrates my point.

BoingBoing's under no obligations, you see, and few people are saying that it's the same as the stuff they criticize, but -- insert handwaving here --- it's still "hypocritism". Because all those differences aren't really differences, and cheap moral grandstanding beats a rational argument.

Posted June 30, 2008 4:31 PM by Scraps

shmegegge, you either don't know what censorship is or are deliberately misusing the word (the better to shout "hypocrisy").

(And I'm not even going into the absurdity of your implication that BoingBoing has only ever opposed censorship from the government. How on earth you're able to even type that with a straight face is beyond me.)

Good of you, inasmuch as one can't type an implication (whether with a straight face or curved fingers), or even (as in this case) an incoherent inference.

Posted June 30, 2008 4:37 PM by Scraps

Patrick: The "Little Brother" reference was a little bit of an inside joke given that Cory wrote it and you edited it (uh, I think you edited it) but in context I probably should have left it out. This isn't about being a "police state" since the stakes are so much lower and far less important. It's a simple matter of hypocrisy on the part of a high profile website.

I'd prefer not to get hung up on my joke so I apologize for the hyperbole. No reason to compare hypocrisy to disappearing people or whatever.

Others have provided examples of why it is hypocrisy, though, so I won't clog up the space repeating them.

Posted June 30, 2008 4:37 PM by David Bilek

Scraps, you neatly changed at least one thing I said 180 degrees. To recap:

(1) BoingBoing's under no obligations.

(2) One of the premises Patrick predicates his argument on is that BoingBoing has preached openness, transparency, etc. only of public agencies, monopolies, and beneficiaries of public largesse.

(2a) They've not. They've preached it of all, including many, many private entities that don't match those three categories.

(2b) Few people are saying BoingBoing has a legal requirement not to practice censorship.

(2c) MOST people are saying that it's the same as the stuff they criticize. Not few. There are no differences between BoingBoing criticizing private entities, people, and blogs for not being transparent, and who they are themselves.

(3) As is frequent in these arguments, one of the lowest-hanging fruit you chose to pluck, even if it really has nothing to do with the argument at hand. I did indeed type "hypocritism" instead of "hypocrisy."

Posted June 30, 2008 4:40 PM by Mike Harris

Patrick: I also wish to point out that I don't agree with everything everybody who thinks BB is being hypocritical posts. I'm sure that goes without saying, but I'm trying not to be acrimonious here even though I disagree with the thrust of your post and some people are being a little confrontational.

shmegegge: Patrick isn't part of the BB staff. It's Teresa who is moderator there.

Posted June 30, 2008 4:41 PM by David Bilek

Good of you, inasmuch as one can't type an implication (whether with a straight face or curved fingers), or even (as in this case) an incoherent inference.

that's an excellent point, and you've clearly cut directly to the heart of the matter at hand. it's been a pleasure discussing things with you, whoever you are. if you'd like to, feel free to criticize my inappropriately use lower-case letters, since they clearly undermine my argument just as devastatingly.

Posted June 30, 2008 4:42 PM by shmegegge

shmegegge: Patrick isn't part of the BB staff. It's Teresa who is moderator there.

i know.

Posted June 30, 2008 4:46 PM by shmegegge

I don't suppose someone without an axe to grind could either explain or link to what's being argued about? I feel like I've been airdropped into a flamewar but don't know who the combatants are.

Posted June 30, 2008 4:49 PM by colin roald

Regarding the Violet Blue stuff, I don't have any personal knowledge of it, or even a very clear idea who she is, except that I know that the whole fuss has little or nothing to do with Cory. (The assertion above that BB is "Cory's site" is false; it's four people's site. Yes, obviously, they all share some responsibility for it.)

I can think of a lot of reasons I might decide to delete a bunch of old posts having to do with a person I was previously friendly with, and who has since behaved in a manner that made me want to have nothing to do with them. I can even imagine being in situations where I was somewhat enjoined, by legal advice, common sense, or even my own emotional limitations, from wanting to talk about it. Making this sort of a thing a litmus test of "hypocrisy" is silly. People have a right to disassociate themselves from one another.

Mike Harris seems to be sayings that if I criticize a business or a professional association for un-transparent behavior, I'm obliged to live my personal life and run my personal web site by the standards we bring to shared enterprises. I may never decide to cut my ties to someone and remove references to them from my personal site, no matter what the personal circumstances. In essence, Mike Harris wants to impute a false equivalence in order to make sure that people who venture to criticize businesses, governments, or organizations are required to live their lives without the flexibility and slack that get extended to everyone else. This is an excellent way to make sure nobody ever makes any waves.

Posted June 30, 2008 4:49 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Okay, I admit it: when I see a post where people seem to be carefully and conspicuously Not Talking About a particular incident, it makes me go: "Hm, what's up with this?"

Didn't take too long to find out. But I'm still kind of mystified about what would prompt them to do something like that. I don't presume to pry into their personal lives, but when the incident involves the unannounced targeted removal of a lot of stuff that was public for a long time, one can expect the public to have questions about it.

One of our gracious hosts had a useful post back in September called "Talk, don't spin".
She was writing that specifically about "scandals and other PR disasters", but a fair bit of it applies even to *perceptions* of scandals, e.g.:

"Give up all hope of sneaking anything past your listeners... [T]he internet is watching, and behind each and every pair of eyes out there is a person who knows how to Google."

Posted June 30, 2008 4:51 PM by John Mark Ockerbloom

Can we start over? This discussion hasn't made a lick of sense since comment #3. (Kudos to Lila & kouredios, though.)

What are we fighting about? Who's on which side? Why did you pick that side? Can someone give me an example illustrating their point?

Posted June 30, 2008 4:53 PM by don delny

Violet Blue? Thank goodness! For a moment I thought you meant V*nn* B*nt*!

Posted June 30, 2008 4:58 PM by James D. Macdonald

Ah, thank you PNH (21), that makes more sense now. (Still not sure what points the other folk were making though.)

Posted June 30, 2008 4:58 PM by don delny

Don: fairly long metafilter thread on the subject is here.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:01 PM by Phil Armstrong

David Bilek, just as you don't want to be hung up on your sloppy imputation that this stuff has some resemblance to the behavior of a police state, I don't particularly want to be hung up on an argument over governments, corporations, associations, and so forth. What I am emphatically saying is that there is a personal sphere within which people have the right to make choices about who they associate with and who they publish, and that a web site like Boing Boing falls completely inside that sphere, no matter how popular it is.

If you disagree, if you really think that every individual web site should be run to the standards we expect of shared enterprises like governments or professional associations, I think the burden is on you to explain how this should work. Or, alternately, if you think Boing Boing's popularity requires it handle its content differently than I handle (say) my LiveJournal, where does this kick in? At what traffic numbers? Why?

Posted June 30, 2008 5:02 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

The only meaning I can glean from this discussion/argument is that the book Little Brother is so bad that the author had to delete comments complaining about how bad it was from his own blog, which made people upset. Is that roughly the situation?

Posted June 30, 2008 5:03 PM by Dom

Anyone ever think it might have been done in fulfillment of a takedown notice? And that there might be some active or potential litigation in progress? There are reasons for erasing things besides trying to pretend they never existed.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:05 PM by Xopher

Others have provided examples of why it is hypocrisy

Actually, we're still waiting for an honest example. The closest anyone's managed is "They've preached it of all, including many, many private entities that don't match those three categories." In other words, assertions not backed up with actual examples.

And I'm betting they'll turn out to be parallels as silly as Zora's to the Society of American Archivists, which is no more convincing for being labeled "shocking" and "disgusting."

BoingBoing is a personal weblog. It doesn't become less so for being popular. No one else has any rights to it; it is not a public resource; deleting anything in it, including comments and commenters, is theirs to do as and how they wish, and is neither equivalent to government agencies acting in the night or archivists deleting their archives. And "hypocrisy" doesn't mean "people on record of disapproving of things doing things we disapprove of".

Posted June 30, 2008 5:09 PM by Scraps

Dom, the only meaning I can glean from your comment is that you're a jack trying to be inflammatory on purpose, i.e. trolling. Please go back under your bridge now.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:09 PM by Xopher

Patrick, you're being disingenuous in working this latest response off the false precept that BoingBoing is the expression of any of its editors' personal lives, or the personal website of any of the editors.

It's a business. It has hired employees. It sells merchandise. It sells advertising space. Yes, it contains the personal opinions and expressions of its creators. So? Many "old media" publications have opinion columns. That doesn't make them personal and not professional. You and I could quibble all day about the difference between a personal website and a professional website, but when you hire someone to help with your website and you are making a very considerable sum of money from it, I think it falls very squarely into the professional side of things.

There are no doubt great amounts of personal details about the lives of Cory, Mark, David, and Xeni which are and very much should remain utterly opaque. However, removing blog posts doesn't fall into the "personal life" supportive rationale.

You summarize my argument as so: "People who venture to criticize businesses, governments, or organizations are required to live their lives without the flexibility and slack that get extended to everyone else."

In doing so, you substitute two straw men that make the argument fallacious.

People who venture to criticize business, governments or organizations in an online media website business for which they hire employees and make revenue from advertising and merchandise should be considered hypocritical if they don't run that business in accordance with the same principles they believe said businesses, governments and organizations should operate their businesses by.

By the way, BoingBoing has, in the past, quite transparently and openly handled the problem of disappearing one of its posts.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:11 PM by Mike Harris

shmegegge, since you think I avoided the meat of your argument in favor of making fun of the word "hypocritism", I might as well point out that in doing so you neatly avoided the point that you're misusing the word censorship.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:13 PM by Scraps

Bah. Not the word "hypocritism", but the typed straight face etc.

Lost my flowchart.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:16 PM by Scraps

shmegegge, if you "know" (#19) that I'm not a member of BB's staff, why did you write, addressing me in #12, "One can only hope that you don't represent the viewpoints of all of the BoingBoing staff"?

I can think of a possible answer, but it's not a very nice one. I'd rather think better of you.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:16 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Just in case it's not obvious, absolutely nothing under discussion here has anything to do with Little Brother or anyone's online discussions of same.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:19 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Xopher@29: whilst that is possible, the person in quesion is claiming complete ignorance.

It's all a bit wierd, but reminiscent of the way BoingBoing eliminated all mention of Ursula McGuin after Cory infringed the copyright on one of her works.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:20 PM by Phil Armstrong

PNH 36: I'm pretty sure it was clear to everyone except Dom, or perhaps one more than that.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:21 PM by Xopher

Or, alternately, if you think Boing Boing's popularity requires it handle its content differently than I handle (say) my LiveJournal, where does this kick in? At what traffic numbers? Why?

It's not the popularity; Boing Boing has been extremely vocal about how others handle transparency and censorship. And not just government or monopolistic corporate entities. You keep trying to draw a line between a high profile website like Boing Boing and the types of entities that Boing Boing has criticized in the past. I understand why; such a dividing line is important if this isn't to be viewed as hypocrisy.

Our disagreement is that I don't see that bright dividing line. For example, you call SFWA a "professional organization" and seem to think that SFWA ought to be more transparent than, say, Boing Boing which you call a personal web site. I don't see why SFWA has any more responsibility to be open and transparent than Boing Boing does, and Cory went to town on SFWA's lack of transparency. SFWA is an association of private individuals just like Boing Boing is. Hell, Boing Boing undoubtedly has a rather large revenue stream for being nothing but a personal web site. Who makes more money from their position, the owners of BB or the members of SFWA?

And it's not a matter of "requiring" transparency or whatever. I'm not about to go stand outside somebody's house with a placard decrying their stance. I'm not asking for some sort of intervention. I'm just saying it's hypocritical to go after other private entities for pretty much the same sort of thing you yourself engage in, and I'll take Cory Doctorow's (in particular, as he's been the most vocal) stance on this topic with a large grain of salt from now on.

There are other examples besides the criticism of SFWA. (I'll start: SFWA issued DMCA takedown notices which makes them fair game for criticism while BB has, so far as I know, never injected itself in a legal matter in this way). So I realize you can almost certainly pick apart any individual example because there is never going to be an exact analogy for a site like Boing Boing. But I think that's just splitting hairs; The bottom line is that I don't see the dividing line that you see between the type of organizations that BB has criticized and BB itself.

As to the possibility of some sort of legal enjoinder: V.B. herself is clueless about what's going on and she'd be the only person I see that would instigate such a thing, so that seems a very unlikely reason for the silence on this subject.

I know none of the parties involved and I generally don't even post on Boing Boing. I say this only so I'm not coming across like I believe this to be the BIGGEST TRAVESTY ON THE WEB EVER. It's an interesting intersection between the personal and the public on a high profile website, and for that reason I think it is interesting and even a little bit important.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:23 PM by David Bilek

I realize you can almost certainly pick apart any individual example because there is never going to be an exact analogy for a site like Boing Boing. But I think that's just splitting hairs;

In other words, whether or not you can support what you say, you're going to keep calling it hypocrisy. Nice.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:28 PM by Scraps

David #39: SFWA is supposed to represent a whole lot of people; BoingBoing represents the people who write for it and no one else. That seems a pretty clear difference to me.

I'm completely ignorant of what started this off, except that Patrick's original post seems pretty eminently sensible to me. But how did the angry BB people descend on this thread so quickly?

Posted June 30, 2008 5:28 PM by ethan

Scraps, your point about the definition of "censorship" is purely pedantic and could be dismissed for that reason alone. Whether "censorship" is the right word for what's going on here is immaterial.

You also haven't specified what error you think shmegegge is making. Let's assume you're arguing that "censorship" means only government censorship. Then you are being not merely pedantic but also wrong. The OED gives "censorship" as "The office or function of a censor," and goes on to define "censor" as (among other things):

2. a. transf. One who exercises official or officious supervision over morals and conduct.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:29 PM by Grobstein

Oops, a sentence got deleted in my post while I was editing such that the 4th paragraph doesn't make sense.

The parenthetical is simply an example of how you could poke holes in my comparison of the criticism of SFWA with criticism of Boing Boing. I was trying to say that I believe that any example provided would result in holes being poked because there is no such thing as an exactly analogous case.

Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:29 PM by David Bilek

But how did the angry BB people descend on this thread so quickly?

ethan: I don't think they are Boing Boing people, I think they are Metafilter people. This topic has something like 200+ comments at Metafilter last time I checked.

As to SFWA; yes, that's a difference. As I said, I can give example after example and people who don't see the big deal will be able to find holes in them. You could argue, as Patrick does, that this is because there is no comparison between the type of entities BB criticizes and BB itself. I would argue it is because there are almost never completely analogous cases and that the differences don't amount to a dividing line.

I suspect we aren't going to agree on that last point.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:33 PM by David Bilek

ethan, #41: There always seems to be a small crowd of people looking for an opportunity to take Boing Boing down. It seems to barely matter how trivial the issue is. You'd be amazed how many people are outraged that Cory Doctorow devotes, why, one in 20 posts to promoting his own books.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:37 PM by Patrick Nielsen Hayden

mfhgh. New record for me, I couldn't even get halfway down the above linked metafilter page.

I now have a dim understanding of what may have happened, and the impression that many, many metafilter posters think Cory's interests are stupid and Teresa's moderation fascist. Which is odd, because I read boingboing because I think Cory's interests are, er, interesting, and Teresa's moderation useful.*

*and occasionally devastatingly funny.**
**if I was brownnosing on this one, I would have done a much, much better job, probably via a lolcat haiku featuring dinosaurs and sodomy. I have already mailed a (flattened, cc-licensed) papercraft diorama of a steampunk surveillance camera at Disneyland being attacked by a trio of open-source
oh nevermind. You get the idea.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:41 PM by don delny

SFWA is a membership organization. Its leaders are elected. That means that the rank-and-file have some control, through their representatives, of what the organization does.

In order to exercise that control, they have to choose representatives according to their behavior. In order to do that, they must know of all the behavior in which the representatives engage that has relevance to the running of the organization, and indeed have a right to that information and an obligation to pursue it.

In addition, since it's a (loosely) democratic organization, anyone (at all, but especially those who are members) must be free to criticize it. Members must be free to criticize it on its own comment pages, because that's part of how democratic politics is done.

Boing Boing, by contrast, is entirely privately owned, has no dues-paying members, and is not democratically run, nor should it be. It makes no pretensions of same. Therefore we have as much right to information about its internal workings, including decisions about content, as its owners choose to publish, and no more.

Still waiting for the honest example of when they've criticized a relevantly-similar organization for doing things relevantly similar to what they've done in this case.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:41 PM by Xopher

For the record, I have no particular beef with Boing Boing (apart from what I've posted in this thread) and, in fact, just finished LITTLE BROTHER about 4 days ago. I encourage everyone to buy and read it as well as any book the other people on Boing Boing write.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:42 PM by David Bilek

Damn, Patrick, shame you fell to ad hominem so quickly. Now, it's just that we're "trying to take Boing Boing down."

Really, man, you're a professional editor. I expected a hell of a lot more class.

By the way, not a company?

Check the footer of BoingBoing, and look at the last three letters of who owns the Boing Boing trademark.

Happy Mutants ...

... LLC. Limited Liability Company.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:42 PM by Mike Harris

#31: OK, sorry.

#36: Oh. It really wasn't obvious without further research.

Boing Boing deleted posts referring to a third-party author/blogger, which made people upset, causing them to comment on Boing Boing posts by blogger Cory Doctorow about his own book, which comments were also deleted, making people upset again.

The two separate deletion events make the circumlocutions in this thread doubly confusing.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:43 PM by Dom

Xopher: okay, how about when BB criticized Digg for pulling down the AACS key in response to DMCA notices? Digg was "disappearing" any post referencing the AACS key in much the same way that BB has "disappeared" any posts referencing V.B.

I assume you'll poke holes in this, and the next one, and the next one. Is it really worth our time to go down that round? Either you think these things are remotely analogous or you don't.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:45 PM by David Bilek

Scraps, your point about the definition of "censorship" is purely pedantic and could be dismissed for that reason alone. Whether "censorship" is the right word for what's going on here is immaterial.

Hardly. The word "censorship" is used because it has emotional power, proceeding from it use by the powerful against the powerless. Nothing going on here is entitled that that emotional power.

I think you'll find this comports with common usage. For example, if a private school screens out certain phrases from student publications, that is commonly called "censorship."

Sure. But I note that you don't explain how what BoingBoing has done fits the casual use of censorship like the example you give. Because, of course, it doesn't. But "actions we disapprove of" just doesn't have the same oomph as "censorship".

Posted June 30, 2008 5:45 PM by Scraps

David 44: "Relevantly similar" reverses to "relevantly distinct" too. Give us a specific case, and we'll say how the cases differ, and why the difference MAKES a difference.

Of course analogies are never perfect. It's literally impossible, because when they're perfect they cease to be analogies. But we're not going to say "Aha! This case is different because the name of the website is not a five-letter sound-effect word replicated! Your analogy falls!"

Posted June 30, 2008 5:46 PM by Xopher

David Bilek, 51,
I assume you'll poke holes in this, and the next one, and the next one. Is it really worth our time to go down that round? Either you think these things are remotely analogous or you don't.

Can you make your point without using analogy?

Posted June 30, 2008 5:49 PM by don delny

You'd be amazed how many people are outraged that Cory Doctorow devotes, why, one in 20 posts to promoting his own books.

That always made me scratch my head, too.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:49 PM by Shawn Struck

shmegegge, since you think I avoided the meat of your argument in favor of making fun of the word "hypocritism", I might as well point out that in doing so you neatly avoided the point that you're misusing the word censorship.

I don't know what you're talking about. I think you've stopped talking about the topic at hand to take the opportunity to snark about grammar mistakes. I've avoided responding to you in any other matter for this reason alone. for the record, though, I have not misused the word censorship, and no amount of you claiming otherwise proves that I have. by all means, go back to your petty grammar snarking.

shmegegge, if you "know" (#19) that I'm not a member of BB's staff, why did you write, addressing me in #12, "One can only hope that you don't represent the viewpoints of all of the BoingBoing staff"? I can think of a possible answer, but it's not a very nice one. I'd rather think better of you.

I can see why that would imply that I thought you were a member of the BoingBoing staff. I had intended it to mean that any given member of the staff might agree with you, but that I hope not all of them do. It was poorly phrased. these things happen.

but for real, now. why are you spinning this? now you've tried to claim that boingboing is a personal web site. come on. you have now backpedaled on your initial post, readjusted your argument and once again shifted focus away from the actual concern that a lot of people have: namely that boingboing appears to be engaging in what they oppose without addressing the apparent disconnect between their words and their deeds. If you want to defend them, awesome, but why claim that it's a personal web site? why claim they only oppose censorship from government sources? why are you twisting this? I can think of a number of reasons, but I'd rather think better of you.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:50 PM by shmegegge

Don, he's not making analogies ... he's bringing up examples of prior op-eds in Boing Boing that advocate transparency, etc. that BB is now acting in an opposing manner. You can't prove or disprove hypocrisy without citing to past behavior, since same is an essential component one way or the other.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:51 PM by Mike Harris

I don't have a horse in this race (aside from being a visitor of ML, Boing Boing, and Metafilter)but from an outsider's perspective, all I see is that this discussion is getting bogged down in semantics when the following facts appear to be true:

1. Boing Boing has often commented negatively on obfuscation and "spin" against government, and corporations large and small.

2. Boing Boing is not a "personal website," by any definition I can think of, to wit: each of the 4 main editors have their own personal websites which are largely if not totally unencumbered by advertisements, where Boing Boing has a large number, and from a brief perusal, none of their personal websites claim to be copyright "Happy Mutants, LLC" -- which by definition is a corporation.

3. Retroactive deleting of (nearly) all entries and comments which even make reference to a specific person, and going on 48 hours without so much as a "our lawyers tell us to shut up" smacks strongly of the very types of evasion and obfuscation that Boing Boing has clearly, and regularly, taken a stand against.

4. This behavior by Happy Mutants, LLC is plainly counter to Boing Boing's long-standing opposition, and people have taken notice of this.

Now, whatever argument you may want to make of it, I think these 4 points of fact are accurate.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:51 PM by tim

David 51: That does sound similar. I don't know enough about the Digg case (or what BB said about it) to comment, unfortunately.

Posted June 30, 2008 5:52 PM by Xopher

Well, here's another example:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/26/carlo-longino-uses-g.html

Posted June 30, 2008 5:56 PM by Shawn Struck

tim 58: One quibble. An LLC is privately held (and not a corporation: the 'C' stands for 'Company'). If they were a public corporation, they would be accountable to their stockholders and potential stockholders (i.e. the public). An LLC has different rules. IANAL but I believe the requirements of public disclosure are much less. And the legal requirements are to enforce a moral one; the stockholders own the corporation, and the potential stockholders are potential buyers of the corporation. Happy Mutants, LLC is owned by its four principals, who are accountable only to each other.

Posted June 30, 2008 6:01 PM by Xopher

Mike Harris, you called Patrick disingenuous, and now you're crying ad hominem when he points out the obvious fact that there are a bunch of folks out there who look for any opportunity to attack BoingBoing (and Cory) and aren't especially scrupulous about it?

The outrage over this -- witness the quote from Zora for real disingenuousness -- is transparently manufactured. I believe the sincerity of the people who are arguing politely that BoingBoing is guilty of hypocrisy -- I believe your sincerity -- even while I think it's a damned silly argument. But I think the outraged are just posturing trolls.

Posted June 30, 2008 6:02 PM by Scraps

Xopher: Thanks for the open mind. I'm not trying to back out of this discussion; rather, I'm trying to avoid dominating it and coming across as having a generalized beef with Boing Boing.

I'll help poke holes in the example since you aren't familiar with it: I'm not sure Boing Boing specifically posted criticism per se with regard to the Digg AACS case. They linked approvingly to criticism about it and talked up the case but I don't recall seeing any direct commentary from the owners of Boing Boing.

That's why I think providing examples is unlikely to change too many minds; there is always going to be wiggle room if you are inclined to find it.

In any case, I'm happy to talk about this forever but I'm sure everyone's eyes are glazing over. I hope you can see my point of view even if you don't agree with it. I'm not calling for a boycott of BB or anything, I just think they're being hypocritical.

Posted June 30, 2008 6:03 PM by David Bilek

Mike Harris, you called Patrick disingenuous, and now you're crying ad hominem...

Ad hominem is attacking the person and not the argument. He's now attacking the people making the argument, and not the argument itself. So, yes, he's making an ad hominem argument.

Posted June 30, 2008 6:04 PM by Mike Harris

"Happy Mutants, LLC is owned by its four principals, who are accountable only to each other."

What about their readers? They don't owe them any accountability?

Posted June 30, 2008 6:07 PM by Jerry Yeti

Xopher 61: Fair enough. I believe my point stands, though. Even though an LLC is not publicly held, it is a for-profit corporate entity, and thus Boing Boing is not a "personal" website, but a corporate-owned (or for-profit company-owned, if you will) website.

Posted June 30, 2008 6:10 PM by tim

Jerry Yeti, 65,
"Happy Mutants, LLC is owned by its four principals, who are accountable only to each other." What about their readers? They don't owe them any accountability?

No, I don't think so. Their fans, yes, some accountability. But their detractors? I don't think it works like that.

Posted June 30, 2008 6:11 PM by don delny

I'm not calling for a boycott of BB or anything, I just think they're being hypocritical.

Same here. I like the site, I visited at least twice a day, I promoted the heck out of Little Brother to friends and acquaintances.

Also, I don't know what the heck happened to my previous post-- it look okay in preview, but there seems to be a paragraph cut off. >_

Same here. I like the site, I visited at least twice a day, I promoted the heck out of Little Brother to friends and acquaintances.

Also, I don't know what the heck happened to my previous post-- it look okay in preview, but there seems to be a paragraph cut off. >_

Posted June 30, 2008 6:12 PM by Shawn Struck

shmegegge, misusing words is not a "grammar mistake". And if you think BoingBoing is engaging in censorship, you are misusing the word. Not in its pedantic sense, but in any meaningful sense above the junior high school level.

But your whole "Wow, why are you spinning this" paragraph makes it clear that you are only in this for the demogoguery.

"I'd rather think better of you"

Who do you imagine you're fooling?

Posted June 30, 2008 6:15 PM by Scraps

I'm sorry, did you say something?

Posted June 30, 2008 6:16 PM by shmegegge

#37, Phil Armstrong

reminiscent of the way BoingBoing eliminated all mention of Ursula McGuin[sic] after Cory infringed the copyright on one of her works.

I saw this statement at metafilter too. Where are you getting your info? Because it looks to me like your source is wrong. You may think the apology is too little, too late, and any apology that includes justification doesn't deserve the name (criticisms I've seen of that post) but saying that the post doesn't include any mention of Le Guin is pretty silly.

Unless, of course, you're doing a Google search for Ursula McGuin, and then yes, I can see that you might think all mention has been deleted.

Posted June 30, 2008 6:16 PM by R. M. Koske

But how did the angry BB people descend on this thread so quickly?

Someone else has already pointed out that several of the commenters here are via the Metafilter thread. I recognize some names, both of folks actively commenting in that thread and from the site in general. I also see some unfamiliar names, of folks who seem to have gotten here by their own means and who I presume have nothing to do with mefi.

I'm "cortex" over there, one of the moderators.

Angry, I don't know. Taken aback? Squicked out? Bothered by an apparent disconnect? I think tim at #58 laid out fairly well the shape of the thing that's bothering a lot of people, and it's got very little to do with folks who do or don't like Cory's books, etc, as vocal as those folks might be amidst the more substantive discussion going on.

But regardless of who and how, I think the "why" of the question -- why did people end up here so quickly -- is pretty obvious:

There's a news going around on big bloggish sites today about something that happened on a very big bloggish site, and this thread, oblique as it is and posted by someone who is merely (as he points out) personally rather than profesionally connected to the site involved, is as close as we've gotten to discussion of the issue from a principal at BoingBoing.

People want to know what's up. This thread obviously wasn't intended as a clearing house for info from BB, but it's the closest thing to someone addressing any of the issue, even if only from an associative step away from the folks at the center of it. This thread probably wouldn't be nearly as busy if there were a discussion being facilitated by BoingBoing itself.

Posted June 30, 2008 6:24 PM by Josh Millard

Mike, I was pointing out the you used an ad hominem on Patrick before the one you pointed out. And that his is demonstrably true -- he said it of some, not all, and it is clearly true of some -- while yours requires mind-reading.

3. Retroactive deleting of (nearly) all entries and comments which even make reference to a specific person, and going on 48 hours without so much as a "our lawyers tell us to shut up" smacks strongly of the very types of evasion and obfuscation that Boing Boing has clearly, and regularly, taken a stand against.

Tim, I wouldn't call that a fact. I don't think it smacks of any of the kinds of behavior they've taken a stand against. They have taken an action that some folks don't like. Apart from vague words like "evasion" and "obfuscation" that don't seem to me to apply here -- why do they owe uninvolved parties any explanation? -- how is it similar to things they've criticized?

On a really basic level: What harm has been done, and to whom? Not abstractions, here, but actual harm? And compare it to the things they've criticized. Where is a real parallel?

Posted June 30, 2008 6:25 PM by Scraps

Retroactive deleting of (nearly) all entries and comments which even make reference to a specific person, and going on 48 hours without so much as a "our lawyers tell us to shut up" smacks strongly of the very types of evasion and obfuscation that Boing Boing has clearly, and regularly, taken a stand against.

This is the heart of the matter, and I would greatly appreciate it if the defense team could focus on it rather than nitpick about grammar or analogies or try to smear critics as "a small crowd of people looking for an opportunity to take Boing Boing down." Come on, Patrick, that's unworthy of you.

(Preemptive note: "Defense team" is a jokey reference to those defending BoingBoing's behavior. I do not imply, nor do I believe, that such people are actually an organized team, still less that they are claiming to be lawyers or are in the pay of Happy Mutants, LLC. Thank you for your attention.)

Posted June 30, 2008 6:26 PM by language hat

xopher@31: I think you're being too hard on Dom@28. The *first* mention of a proper name in this thread, ie, the first remote clue as to what anyone was talking about, was David's comment #4, which finally mentions Boing Boing, Cory, and Little Brother. If you assume we don't read Metafilter or Valleywag or whoever the heck else has their knickers in a twist on this, Dom's guess was pretty reasonable. It was also my first mystified guess, anyway.

Posted June 30, 2008 6:33 PM by colin roald

RM@29: My understanding was that they'd eliminated any posts mentioning her, apart from the apology you link to. I'm happy to be corrected on that score if it's untrue.

The fact that BoingBoing is in general trigger happy with the delete button on perceived criticism is uncontroversial I think. It's their right to be so of course.

Posted June 30, 2008 6:34 PM by Phil Armstrong

That post should be addressed to RM@71 of course.

Posted June 30, 2008 6:35 PM by Phil Armstrong

Thanks to those who pointed out that BB isn't a personal site, it's a for-profit corporation. I brought up their revenue previously but I hadn't done the research to realize they were officially for-profit.

I think the for-profit nature of BB changes matters and makes Patrick's objection to this level of scrutiny for a "personal site" moot.

Posted June 30, 2008 6:38 PM by David Bilek

David's comment #4, which finally mentions Boing Boing, Cory, and Little Brother.

I already made it clear, but I'll do so again; I was making a joke since the name is (intentionally) reminiscent of big brother and Patrick edited it, but it has nothing to do with any of this and I'm sorry I even mentioned the name of the book.

Posted June 30, 2008 6:40 PM by David Bilek

Scraps: I really don't see "disingenuous" as an attack on the person. I've always seen it as more of a debate technique ("giving a false appearance of simple frankness").

Posted June 30, 2008 6:41 PM by Mike Harris

#76, Phil Armstrong -

Deleting all posts relating to her except the one linked isn't deleting all mention of her. I don't know how often she was mentioned prior to the incident. If she had been a topic of praise and then that was deleted, then that does possibly bear relevance to this discussion, but overstating the situation doesn't strike me as useful. I did google, and she only turns up in that post and in comments. (I'm torn about whether or not the comments count for "deleting all mention of her" or not.)

Do you recall one way or the other?

Posted June 30, 2008 6:41 PM by R. M. Koske

language 74: Cross-posting sucks, doesn't it? I know I hate that part.

colin 75: Hmm, perhaps. It depends on how you read 50. I read it as distinctly sarky, but looking at it again I can see an alternative reading.

Dom, if you weren't being sarcastic and inflammatory, I apologize.

Posted June 30, 2008 6:43 PM by Xopher

language hat, at post #74, expresses my sentiment precisely. I've read BoingBoing for a long time and come to trust them; this feels like a loss to me. I expected a reasonable level of transparency. Now, to link to any content from BoingBoing, I have to wait until it hits the Google cache or archive.org.

And that's the other thing: BoingBoing has been a place that champions the fact that clamping down on information just draws attention to it- see the DeCSS debacle. I'd think they'd have the savvy to figure out the inevitable reaction to something like this.

Does anyone have the full set of redacted posts, or links to them on archive.org?

Posted June 30, 2008 6:47 PM by Eric Boyd

...Huh. I was figuring some Republican hack somewhere was crying that Obama hadn't presented his medical records or the report cards of his daughters or something; and then I came back and saw that the post had gotten 80-some comments in like two hours, so I checked to see what the flame war was.

From what I see here, tim at #58 has it right.

My thoughts: 1. it is too bad when you find that someone has feet of clay. As much as "hypocrite" is an ad hominem, ad hominems are powerful arguments for some real reason. I have not yet chewed over whether I think this is a good or bad thing.

2. Violet Blue? I'm looking forward to seeing the story come out, because she's a classic San Franciscan with the hair and makeup and talking about sex stuff, and I feel slightly fond of her for that.

3. It does suck when you write something and then that something vanishes. I prefer the Macdonald "guns" approach of shifting all the offtopic red herring comments to their own thread.

Posted June 30, 2008 6:47 PM by Madeline F

Mike Harris, 64:

"Ad hominem is attacking the person and not the argument."

No, it's not.

It's claiming that the argument itself is refuted by citing (irrelevant) facts, real or otherwise, about the person making the argument. ["Irrelevant" is important here. If Dick says that Jane was the one who killed the professor, and that he knows it because he saw it happen, pointing out that Dick is prone to vivid visual hallucinations would not be fallacious.]

Saying negative, or even insulting, things about the person making the argument doesn't add up to committing the ad hominem fallacy unless you suggest that inferential link. Particularly when you first systematically take apart an argument, and then go on to say critical things about the motives of the person making the argument, you cannot in any way be accused of ad hominem reasoning.

Idiot.*

*Just kidding, but see, if I had just called you an 'idiot', it would have been mean, but it wouldn't have added up to my engaging in an ad hominem argument.

Posted June 30, 2008 6:48 PM by Ben Burgis

Apart from vague words like "evasion" and "obfuscation" that don't seem to me to apply here -- why do they owe uninvolved parties any explanation? -- how is it similar to things they've criticized? -- Scraps #73

They have removed from their website the factual account of the history of the postings. Without a response from Boing Boing, it is not reasonable to infer specifically why that is. The act itself is an act of obfuscation of the facts of the site's history.

It has been a couple days since this deletion has come to light.

The site has proceeded, both in making posts and in moderating comments, without responding to explicit questions both by commenters and (according to anecdote) emailers asking the reason for their actions. That is evasive.

I contend that simply being obfuscatory with respect to the previous posting history and evasive when asked via both email and comments (which were either disemvowelled or deleted) is behavior that, if it were done by someone else, for example, Digg, would receive a at least an observational response by Boing Boing, if not implicit or explicit criticism. This is the disconnect I am seeing here.

But does Happy Mutants/Boing Boing "owe" anyone any explanation? Of course not. That was never my point. But I do think they should be very, very careful, as their current behavior (which I wager many people consider to be evasive and obfuscatory) is a short road to lowering one's "brand equity" in these here Intertubes. And in a marketplace of ideas that moves so quickly, reputation is everything.

Posted June 30, 2008 6:48 PM by tim

RM@81: sadly not. And archive.org doesn't do text searches...

Scratch that example then.

Posted June 30, 2008 6:49 PM by Phil Armstrong

What about their readers? They don't owe them any accountability?

In fact, not one bit. Now, you might think that accountability might help them *keep* them as readers, and that this would be a good thing.

I'd probably agree with you.

But "owe?" No. There's no debt incurred. There's no cost to read the site, there's no obligation -- to reader, or to author -- incurred by doing so.

Unless you have a contract or other legal note of obligation, the editors of "Boing Boing" owe you nothing. And a large part of this whole episode is people trying to assert debts that simply do not exist.

Or, quite simply: It's just a weblog.

Thanks to those who pointed out that BB isn't a personal site, it's a for-profit corporation

Changes nothing. If it was a publicly held for-profit corporation, then they would have obligations to the shareholders. A private for-profit corporation has obligations *only* to the owners, and those who it holds legal contracts and such with.

Indeed, if this bothers you, you can stop reading, and *actually hurt their bottom line."

Posted June 30, 2008 6:49 PM by Erik Olson

#81: See http://web.archive.org/web/20060926103226/boingboing.net/2006_09_01_archive.html

and search for VIOLET.

"BoingBoing pal and intrepid sexblogger/podcaster/author Violet Blue today made her debut..."

Posted June 30, 2008 6:51 PM by Eric Boyd

There is the fact that Cory claimed to have done it of course:

"I heard from SFWA President Michael Capobianco, who informed me that Ms Le Guin had contacted him asking to have the whole work removed -- I did so immediately, also removing all other quotes and references to Ms Le Guin from Boing Boing's archives."

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/10/14/an-apology-to-ursula.html

Posted June 30, 2008 6:51 PM by Phil Armstrong

A search on BoingBoing for "Ursula Le Guin" yields 20 results, mostly linking to comments rather than main posts. I haven't the time to go through the Wayback machine, but I never had the impression that she was much mentioned on BoingBoing; the result count feels about right.

Reading the MeFi thread, I see the commenters are about as accurate as I'd expect for a big site at a fast pace, IOW, not very much. Someone, for instance, seemed to translate my plaintive request for more egoboo (trans: praise, strokes) on my fifteen minutes of fame into moderator-speak for criticism.

Check your facts, guys, before repeating them.

Posted June 30, 2008 6:57 PM by abi

I heard this reasoning as an argument against open source recently: "well if you're in favor of open source, you shouldn't care about border guards looking at your laptop because all your information should be free and open to the public!"

Ah, not so much, no. My files aren't proprietary; they're personal.

Posted June 30, 2008 7:07 PM by annalee flower horne

The reason that the meaning of words and the precision of analogies are disputed is because the entire case being made against BoingBoing is built on words and analogies that seem to many of us suspect. The accusation of hypocrisy has analogy at its heart>/i>: "they're doing this thing when they've decried this other thing that's just like it!" If the issue is hypocrisy, than the validity of the analogies is going to be central to the case.

In particular, discussing specific positions BoingBoing has taken is crucial to making this case, because in those specific cases we can examine who has been harmed by the behavior and in what way, and if it is in fact similar to any harm that can be argued about BoingBoing's behavior. (And outside of Violet Blue, who has been harmed? Again, not abstractions like [say] "the discourse"; how has harm been done to any of the people making complaints?) Is it disputed that BoingBoing's past positions to which people are making (general) analogy are ones in which people were harmed in explicable ways? Despite some people saying that anything can be nit-picked, etc, good parallels ought to be specifically arguable; when an anti-abortion activist hides an abortion, the hypocrisy is clear and no honest person can "nit-pick" the parallel away. Given that hypocrisy is a very serious character charge, I think that people making the charge ought to go to some trouble to make the charge specific, focused, and strong against nit-picking.

And Tim, I see what you're saying, but to me, not responding isn't the same as being evasive. (Words again!) Especially if the person asking isn't owed an explanation.

Posted June 30, 2008 7:13 PM by Scraps

The reason that the meaning of words and the precision of analogies are disputed is because the entire case being made against BoingBoing is built on words and analogies that seem to many of us suspect. The accusation of hypocrisy has analogy at its heart: "they're doing this thing when they've decried this other thing that's just like it!" If the issue is hypocrisy, than the validity of the analogies is going to be central to the case.

In particular, discussing specific positions BoingBoing has taken is crucial to making this case, because in those specific cases we can examine who has been harmed by the behavior and in what way, and if it is in fact similar to any harm that can be argued about BoingBoing's behavior. (And outside of Violet Blue, who has been harmed? Again, not abstractions like [say] "the discourse"; how has harm been done to any of the people making complaints?) Is it disputed that BoingBoing's past positions to which people are making (general) analogy are ones in which people were harmed in explicable ways? Despite some people saying that anything can be nit-picked, etc, good parallels ought to be specifically arguable; when an anti-abortion activist hides an abortion, the hypocrisy is clear and no honest person can "nit-pick" the parallel away. Given that hypocrisy is a very serious character charge, I think that people making the charge ought to go to some trouble to make the charge specific, focused, and strong against nit-picking.

And Tim, I see what you're saying, but to me, not responding isn't the same as being evasive. (Words again!) Especially if the person asking isn't owed an explanation.

Posted June 30, 2008 7:16 PM by Scraps

The reason that the meaning of words and the precision of analogies are disputed is because the entire case being made against BoingBoing is built on words and analogies that seem to many of us suspect.

While that's a fair point, I think it might also be because some people are telling lies, and other people are telling the truth.

Lying is bad. Liars are bad people, like George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Posted June 30, 2008 7:19 PM by Niall McAuley

Scraps@94: Speaking personally, the actions speak for themselves. The implied hypocrisy just makes for a higher quality of snark.

On that topic however, this BB post (via the metafilter thread) has some relevance to this discussion.

Posted June 30, 2008 7:26 PM by Phil Armstrong

While that's a fair point, I think it might also be because some people are telling lies, and other people are telling the truth.

Such as? I haven't seen anybody lying. Having differing interpretations of Boing Boing's actions, sure, but it seems to me that implying dishonesty on anyone's part here is over the top.

Posted June 30, 2008 7:31 PM by David Bilek

Scraps:

The more important question is what effect this action has on the community of boing boing readers; does it make the site less interesting or valuable to them? For example, I really like the history available on ML, and I'd hate to see genuine posts/posters airbrushed out of the comment threads months or years later.

Now, I'm not a boing boing reader, so this isn't something I feel strongly about. But I think the language of legal or moral obligations is probably wrong for this kind of situation. The issue isn't really even hypocrisy. The issue is, does this make the readers and participants feel more or less like a community? Does it make the website more or less useful, more or less a place they want to spend their time and energy?

Posted June 30, 2008 7:31 PM by albatross

[Edited to add: IP address evidence suggests that this commenter forged message #167 from "Xeni Jardin." -PNH]

"So-and-so claims to call us to virtue, but look, they’re not a saint after all!"

Let's give that strawman some more accurate and relevant wording:

"So-and-so calls for the preservation of archives, but look, they’re deleting their own archives!"

Look. I don't expect those who are against censorship to live their entire lives in a goldfish bowl. I expect those who use a prominent public venue where they loudly rail against obscurity and censorship to conform in practice to the values they clearly state.

As for obligation, hypocrites are not "obliged" to adhere to their advocated principles. Of course they are are free to cast aside the trust which has been mistakenly placed in them.

But I personally feel that hypocrites with good manners would at least state this fact in clear terms to those they have betrayed rather than cowering in obscurity and silence. Is a "Sorry I'm a hypocrite" card really too much to ask?

Posted June 30, 2008 7:35 PM by zota

Albatross, I agree that's a more interesting potential conversation than BoingBoing's supposed hypocrisy.

Posted June 30, 2008 7:37 PM by Scraps

#90, Phil Armstrong -

Okay, I can see where that would get quoted as "all references have been removed," but no matter what Doctorow said, there's still one reference to her at Boingboing, a big one that includes the fact the Le Guin was angry at Doctorow for something Doctorow did. I think that's part of my problem with the way it has been stated in the places I saw it. Saying "Boingboing took down all references to her after Cory infringed on her copyright," makes it sound like they did it to hide the infringement, and that's clearly not the case. Removing the infringing post was what Le Guin wanted and the right thing to do was to take it down. Removing the others (and there must have been others from what he said) is a bit more iffy, but he told us he did it and sort of why.

The way it was done was (I think) the way a lot of the objectors to this situation wish this situation had been handled - in public and clearly. I don't think it is an example of previous bad behavior of the type being currently discussed.

Thanks for digging out the source of "it all got taken down" concept.

Posted June 30, 2008 7:39 PM by R. M. Koske

Zota, so you're going to pretend that calling for preserving a specific set of archives means one must be in favor of preserving anything anyone can call an archive? I say "pretend" because I take as a given that you're intelligent enough to not actually believe in the analogy you're trying to pass off with a loosely used word.

Posted June 30, 2008 7:42 PM by Scraps

Scraps: Are there any circumstances under which you'd accept that BB's actions were anything less than stunningly wonderful? Because I'm getting the strong impression that there isn't.

Posted June 30, 2008 7:47 PM by David Bilek

Erik @88: In the general case I disagree on principle. A person, or a collective entity, may have responsibilities toward other people, or groups of people, that they should be held to by force of argument and public disapproval, even though one could not persuade the state (via the legal system) to compel them. I consider it one of the great failings of the age that some people and organizations act as though their only responsibilities are those that have the weight of law behind them.

We really don't have enough information to throw mud at Boing Boing for what they actually did. I'm happy to assume that it was the least bad option they had. However, whatever their reasons, they've broken a cultural norm - URLs are supposed to remain live, especially those labeled out as "perma(nent) link"s - and so they have a responsibility to acknowledge the action and provide as much of an explanation as they can under the circumstances.

Silence also makes the action look worse than it probably was, because it is human nature to speculate madly to fill up a vacuum, and so for purely pragmatic reasons they ought to have said something; we probably wouldn't be having this argument if they had.

Posted June 30, 2008 7:51 PM by Zack

#101 RM: I agree entirely. A little up front public acknowlegement would probably have headed off a lot of the criticism that's been levelled at BoingBoing.

Dropping people down the memory hole is just rude. It may be justified, but people are naturally going to assume the worst in the absence of an explanation, especially when requests for one are treated in exactly the same way.

I know BB has gone down in my estimation as a result of this kerfuffle.

Posted June 30, 2008 7:59 PM by Phil Armstrong

Speaking of evasions.

David, I've said that I think making a case for hypocrisy depends upon good specific analogies. I believe you have said that any example you can give would be nit-picked. It seems odd for you to then accuse me of being the one who won't accept anyone else's argument.

And you don't know me very well. I find specific things in BoingBoing annoying with some frequency, and on occasion I think one or another of them is a ripe asshole. I don't know enough to have an opinion about this particular action; might be assholery, might be a falling-out, might be legal issues, who knows. I doubt I'd find it very near stunningly wonderful. It's not my business, certainly.

But I know what I think of opportunistic blowhards like Zota yapping buzzwords like "betrayal" and "hypocrisy" and making personal hay out of someone else's issue with a pretense of public advocacy.

Posted June 30, 2008 7:59 PM by Scraps

David Bilek @ 78:

"I think the for-profit nature of BB changes matters and makes Patrick's objection to this level of scrutiny for a 'personal site' moot."

Bah. I could very easily put ads on my personal site and make it for profit. It wouldn't make it any less of a personal site, because the person who runs it and controls it and has say over what goes up on it is me, personally.

In other words, "personal" is not synonymous with "amateur."

Posted June 30, 2008 8:02 PM by John Scalzi

David Bilek said:
I haven't seen anybody lying.

Yes, you have. But you like their point of view, so you pretend that you haven't noticed.

To be specific, the whole thread is about censorship, yet there is no censor. All lies.

Posted June 30, 2008 8:10 PM by Niall McAuley

To be specific, the whole thread is about censorship, yet there is no censor. All lies.

Do you consider it lying when Boing Boing uses the word "censorship" in exactly the way the people in this thread are using it? Colloquially, that is, not meaning government censorship. I'd be happy to provide you as many examples as you care for of Boing Boing referring to actions by private entities as "censorship".

I think you're off base here. But if you disagree, how many examples would you accept? 5?

Posted June 30, 2008 8:16 PM by David Bilek

Transparency in personal matters is often a good idea if one is going to be active politically. When I was active in NCCL, and particularly once I was Deputy Chair, I gave up all recreational drugs save coffee, and was painstakingly out about the more disreputable bits of my past. I mean, it was a long time since I had