Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[Stout]

I suppose if someone were bored and looking for a little entertainment they could register a Twitter account and start putting plussers and FtBloggers on there

 

[SimplyAghast]

Of course not! If they told, you, that would obviate the all-important "think about what you said and why it got you there" step!

They TRY to help you out. They offer you a basket of lynx to let you know what you're allowed to say and how you are permitted to say it. They give you a week's vacation if you use the incorrect gender-neutral pronoun when referring to another poster. They are trying to take David Silverman off of the block list once they figure out how to do so.

I don't know what else they can do to prove they are virtuous and fair people who love the free expression of ideas.

 

[qwints]

The comparison is pretty simple, the SPLC is an organization that unilaterally labels organizations hate groups. Some are noncontroversial - the KKK - others are controversial - the Family Research Council and the American Family Association. The SPLC's designation of those groups seem to be significantly more derogatory, and has a significant effect as the FBI lists the SPLC as a resource and uses it to collect information on hate groups.

The analogy seems clear though the block bot obviously works at a much smaller level.

 

[Kochanski]

The comparison is pretty simple, the SPLC is an organization that unilaterally labels organizations hate groups. Some are noncontroversial - the KKK - others are controversial - the Family Research Council and the American Family Association. The SPLC's designation of those groups seem to be significantly more derogatory, and has a significant effect as the FBI lists the SPLC as a resource and uses it to collect information on hate groups.

The analogy seems clear though the block bot obviously works at a much smaller level.

The difference is they are labeling organizations NOT individuals. It is not analogous. Blockbot is run by a small group of people using criteria that suits them at the moment that is not spelled out anywhere. Blockbot got featured on BBC Nightnews and they showed individuals twitter ids on screen and identified people on the blockbot as abusers.

This is a big difference. They will be very lucky if they don't end up hauled into court for slander.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The comparison is pretty simple, the SPLC is an organization that unilaterally labels organizations hate groups. Some are noncontroversial - the KKK - others are controversial - the Family Research Council and the American Family Association. The SPLC's designation of those groups seem to be significantly more derogatory, and has a significant effect as the FBI lists the SPLC as a resource and uses it to collect information on hate groups.

The analogy seems clear though the block bot obviously works at a much smaller level.

A much smaller and PERSONAL level. How does that jibe with the beliefs over in Personal Experience/Anecdote Trumps All World? As you continue to devour your young, you're going to have noted and credentialed SJWs (the real ones, which I've alluded to often - the ones with the scars and the stripes on their resistance fatigues to prove it) being blocked by one or another neurotic in charge of The List (cue ominous music). I'm interesting to see how Springfield plays out this year. I've seen reference to one of the people who started it as a misogynist, and he's one of the speakers again this year. If more than one loyal sycophant on FTB tags him with the Scarlet M, is he going to get the Kochanski guilt-by-association block-hammer thrown down?

Bunch of childish little hypocrites.

"Oooh, waaaah, we need a safe space."
"Waaah, this safe space isn't safe enough, we need a Safer Safe Space."
"This safer safe space is really cool. Wouldn't it be swell if we could make the whole world like this? Block everyone we disagree with from posting everywhere we go?"

And then, like the McCarthy hearings, the Stalinist pogroms and the Nazi Youth turning on their classmates and relatives... you proceed to a better world?

"I disagree with you so you cannot speak to me" is a rather extreme method of sharing ideas, don't you think? Better yet,... "I disagree with you on this one topic, so you cannot speak to anyone." Why, that's much more reasonable.

 

[qwints]

The difference is they are labeling organizations NOT individuals.

The SPLC labels individuals as well. Here's David Barton's profile.

It is not analogous. Blockbot is run by a small group of people using criteria that suits them at the moment that is not spelled out anywhere.

How does the SPLC attack? By labeling its opponents "hate groups." No discussion. No consideration of the issues. No engagement. No debate!

Blockbot got featured on BBC Nightnews and they showed individuals twitter ids on screen and identified people on the blockbot as abusers.

Again, the SPLC reports organizations as hate groups to the FBI, and the FBI lists the SPLC as a resource. They maintain a website that lists people as members of hate groups with their pictures. Their profiles show up on the front page for a google search for some of the people identified. The SPLC's voice is louder, harsher and more focused on individuals than the Blockbot

This is a big difference. They will be very lucky if they don't end up hauled into court for slander.

Please don't threaten litigation on an internet forum. It doesn't reflect well on you.

How does that jibe with the beliefs over in Personal Experience/Anecdote Trumps All World?

As far as I know, people aren't being blocked for talking about their personal experiences. If they are, outside of a few specific contexts, then banning them would be wrong.

Block everyone we disagree with from posting everywhere we go?"

Not listening to someone is not akin to preventing them from speaking. Blocking people from posting at some websites isn't preventing them from speaking.

And then, like the McCarthy hearings, the Stalinist pogroms and the Nazi Youth turning on their classmates and relatives... you proceed to a better world?

And I got accused of Godwinning this thread? No one is being killed, no is being jailed. All that's happening is some people are letting others tell them who they shouldn't listen to. I understand why people wouldn't want to follow someone's advice on who they should or shouldn't listen to - I don't use the Blockbot myself - but these sorts of comparisons are ludicrous.

 

[Diogenes]

....

Not listening to someone is not akin to preventing them from speaking. Blocking people from posting at some websites isn't preventing them from speaking....

Are we completely ignoring the intended account spam flagging mechanism that only isn't deployed because of ToS? The full intent was to full-on shut down whosoever they want to shut down not just ignore. If that isn't an intent to internet-bully then I'm sure we'll agree on what internet-bullying actually is.

...And I got accused of Godwinning this thread?...

Orly?

...
qwints appears to be on the verge of a Godwin, though.

Which is different than

....
And I got accused of ...

Thought I would make that clear just in case you thought you were being "accused" and were responding in good faith.

 

[Wildy]

Gee I guess I am just an evil, evil sister punisher, chill girl rather than an individual who thinks and speaks for herself, as I thought was appropriate for an empowered female.

You'll only be considered an "empowered female" by the blockbotters when you conform to their ideals of feminism. Until then you're just an unenlightened oppressed shill for the Patriarchy.

 

[theprestige]

Kochanski, I'm curious what you think about the SPLC's work on hate groups.

As a slight off-tangent, I do have serious problems with SPLC's methods. They (and especially founder Morris Dees) have been repeatedly criticized by other charity groups and charity watchdogs for doing so little while taking in so much money. They also refuse to list hate groups that are left-wing, such as trans exclusive radical feminists.

qwints, I have to admit I'm curious to learn how One Tenth's reply informs your analogy of the SPLC to the A+ blockbot.

 

[Rrose Selavy]

D
eleted.

 

[Joe Random]

To me the significant thing about the block bot is it is yet another example of people willingly eschewing critical thinking for the sake of ideology. While I don't Twitter, I do heartily support the use of killfiles/ignore lists on any social media, so I won't criticize people for wanting to block messages. However what they're doing with the block bot is allowing a small cabal (tiac) to make all the decisions for them as to who is and who isn't worthy of being listened to.

Especially now that the capricious and irrational reasoning used by the cabal (tiac) to decide who is worthy of being lumped in with which particular level of unsavory characters is known, anyone signing up is making a clear statement that they're looking for an ideological bandwagon to jump on, with as little individual thought required as possible.

It'd be incredibly patronizing, if use of the block bot weren't entirely voluntary. "Don't worry about thinking for yourself - we'll take care of it for you".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

FWIW, I'd never even heard of the SPLC until I this thread, and if what I've read in this thread is accurate, then they sound like a terrible, dangerous organisation.

That said, I'm not sure that "these people are worse" is much of a defence of the BlobkBot.

 

[tsig]

FWIW, I'd never even heard of the SPLC until I this thread, and if what I've read in this thread is accurate, then they sound like a terrible, dangerous organisation. That said, I'm not sure that "these people are worse" is much of a defence of the BlobkBot.

Only if you're running a hate group.

(Yes I am a contributor)

 

[qwints]

Are we completely ignoring the intended account spam flagging mechanism that only isn't deployed because of ToS?

I am, it doesn't auto flag accounts as spam. It would be wrong if it did.

qwints, I have to admit I'm curious to learn how One Tenth's reply informs your analogy of the SPLC to the A+ blockbot.

It's very on point. I'm trying to reason by analogy since I think a lot of us have pretty strong biases towards the parties involved in the Blockbot. I agree that it's fair to criticize a group whose list purports to include all "hate groups" but excludes groups that should fit that description because of political bias.

That said, I'm not sure that "these people are worse" is much of a defence of the BlobkBot.

I was using the SPLC as a group that's a fairly prominent example, in the US, of a group publicly condemning others based on their own standards.

 

[kellyb]

Wouldn't it be swell if we could make the whole world like this? Block everyone we disagree with from posting everywhere we go?"

Are they blocking people from tweeting, or just blocking their own ability to see the tweets?

I mean, is it like they're banning people on twitter, or is it the equivalent of if I could create a bot to use on this forum and share my own "ignore list" with anyone who wanted to use it?

 

[Myriad]

Again, the SPLC reports organizations as hate groups to the FBI, and the FBI lists the SPLC as a resource. They maintain a website that lists people as members of hate groups with their pictures. Their profiles show up on the front page for a google search for some of the people identified. The SPLC's voice is louder, harsher and more focused on individuals than the Blockbot

Anyone can report anyone or anything to the FBI. There's an 800 number and everything.

The FBI does list SPLC (along with the Anti-Defamation League and other organizations) as a "resource" on their hate crimes page. They're basically saying that if you find things objectionable that don't actually break the law, the FBI can't help you, but maybe you can vent to (or possibly pursue a civil case through) a private organization. It doesn't imply that "listed by the SPLC" means "under investigation by the FBI."

Does the SPLC require evidence in order to list a group as a hate group? Such as, expressions of, oh I don't know, hate maybe? Or are a couple of member's feelings about the group or person in question sufficient?

And I got accused of Godwinning this thread? No one is being killed, no is being jailed. All that's happening is some people are letting others tell them who they shouldn't listen to. I understand why people wouldn't want to follow someone's advice on who they should or shouldn't listen to - I don't use the Blockbot myself - but these sorts of comparisons are ludicrous.

That little farm with the talking animals George Orwell wrote about was nowhere close to the scale of Soviet pogroms etc. either, and was entirely fictional to boot, but that doesn't prevent it from being a valuable cautionary tale.

Same with Atheism Plus. A group with initially noble-seeming goals elevated their ideology over reason, discourse, and critical thinking, and promptly, as if following a script written by Nietzsche, turned into monsters. They lashed out in every direction including at the marginalized people whose interests they claimed to represent, excusing themselves in the name of a greater good that never came about. They demonstrated no trace of self-restraint; as the intended auto-reporting feature of the blockbot shows, the damage they did was limited only by the (fortunately rather narrow) limits of their power.

This wasn't fiction, or a sketchy chapter in a history book written years later. It happened right before our eyes. As small-scale as it is, it's fascinating, and horrifying, and highly illuminating about history. Historical events that are often met with incredulity ("people wouldn't act that way; there must have been something in the water, or fungus in the rye") can now be understood more clearly: no, just people who think their cause justifies discarding critical thinking.

Near the start of this thread, I speculated on directions the movement could go, and what it might achieve. Now we know: it will endure as a cautionary tale.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Diogenes]

Are they blocking people from tweeting, or just blocking their own ability to see the tweets?

I mean, is it like they're banning people on twitter, or is it the equivalent of if I could create a bot to use on this forum and share my own "ignore list" with anyone who wanted to use it?

It isn't from a lack of trying/wanting to ban twitter accounts they find objectionable. That was initially a feature of the bot.

 

[qwints]

It isn't from a lack of trying/wanting to ban twitter accounts they find objectionable. That was initially a feature of the bot.

The feature, block and report for spam, "was reserved for fake accounts spamming, or sock accounts created to threaten and abuse people," didn't work, and was voluntarily removed from the bot.

 

[Kochanski]

Again, the SPLC reports organizations as hate groups to the FBI, and the FBI lists the SPLC as a resource. They maintain a website that lists people as members of hate groups with their pictures. Their profiles show up on the front page for a google search for some of the people identified. The SPLC's voice is louder, harsher and more focused on individuals than the Blockbot

Honestly I don't care what the SPLC is doing, I care that A+ blockbot is targeting individuals without saying why. I care that people are arbitrarily being listed at different level of blocking and that it was promoted on the BBC.

Please don't threaten litigation on an internet forum. It doesn't reflect well on you.

Who says I am threatening litigation? I am just saying that they have left themselves open to litigation. Could I bring litigation against them, yes. Am I doing it, not at the moment and if I do I will not announce it anywhere on the internet, I am not a fool.

As far as I know, people aren't being blocked for talking about their personal experiences. If they are, outside of a few specific contexts, then banning them would be wrong.

No where is the criteria listed. We have no idea who is in the group that make the decision to include people and no one is getting an explanation as to why they are listed. This is entirely arbitrary.

Not listening to someone is not akin to preventing them from speaking. Blocking people from posting at some websites isn't preventing them from speaking.

Blockbot does not block people from posting on websites so I have no idea what you are talking about. I never attempted to sign up for the A+ forum I have no desire to be there.

Blockbot is not preventing me from speaking it is true, but my issue is not with its creation and use by a small group of individuals who would apparently rather have someone else decide for them whose tweets they should and should not see. I really don't care who sees and doesn't see my tweets, they are my own and I am not using them to promote a blog, a podcast, a career in public speaking or a business of any kind, they are my own musings on whatever I feel like posting.

My issue is with it being presented on the BBC with twitter names shown and with people being publicly label abusers. People who are unaware of how the list was created and its purpose now know where to find these lists and with the misinformation they have been given can come away with false impression of the individuals listed. This can cause genuine harm to people's reputations.

 

[Kochanski]

You'll only be considered an "empowered female" by the blockbotters when you conform to their ideals of feminism. Until then you're just an unenlightened oppressed shill for the Patriarchy.

Gee yeah, and here I was thinking that thinking and acting for myself was the way to go