Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Aaaand it's gone:
C9f7fxC.png


Now, onto its brethen...

"potentially millions of accounts"
 
Last edited:
That this has happened at the same time as they've been made aware that they are liable to get sued for quite a lot of money is, I'm sure, a complete coincidence.
 
Kochanski said:
I bet any future blocking software they use will be kept super secret and back channel, unless they truly are morons.
Click to expand...

Or they could be honest about why people are put on it. The problem wasn't the existence of the list just their libelous reasons for putting people on it.
 
https://www.popehat.com/2015/03/23/why-mean-blockbots-probably-arent-defamatory-with-two-caveats/

Recently some Twitter users have asserted that they are being defamed by Twitter "block bots."

It's easy to block people manually on Twitter, unless you want to block a whole lot of them. Various cultural and political conflicts online have led some users to develop blockbots, which are lists to which you can subscribe (to oversimplify the process) to mass-block everyone on the list. Some lists are created by methodology (like automatically blocking people who follow certain Twitter users affiliated with "GamerGate") and some, like BlockBot, are curated by individuals who choose who goes on the list and why.

Some folks don't like how they are characterized by these lists. BlockBot targets complain of being characterized by mostly anonymous and unaccountable strangers as "racists" or "transphobes" or "rape apologists." Some argue that merely being on a blocklist means they are being characterized as a harasser or affiliated with harassers.

Dissenters may have a point that the lists are unfair or unprincipled. I wouldn't use one myself.

But they almost certainly aren't libel.

[...]

Perhaps, like me, you find it odd that people who say they oppose thin-skinnedness and support free speech are resorting to government help from a censorious system to protect themselves from mean words.
Click to expand...
 
So I can make a list titled "known poedophiles", put them on it and publish it publicly, and that would be perfectly legal?

Do they even believe their own words any more?
 
A'isha said:
https://www.popehat.com/2015/03/23/why-mean-blockbots-probably-arent-defamatory-with-two-caveats/
Click to expand...

I like how the defense is that the blockbot's description of who it bans is so vitriolic and hateful - "vivid and figurative" - that no-one in their right mind would take it seriously or as a statement of fact. "Such characterizations would be seen by their intended audience — and thereby by the courts — as partisan political rhetoric not premised on any specific facts and not susceptible to any specific factual analysis."

Sounds about right. Still, devnull raises a good point.
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Caveat #2 is probably most important here, and isn't a caveat at all, really.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting argument, that anyone familiar with on-line progressivism should know that "rape apologist" doesn't mean anything, it's just a slur that internet bullies throw at anyone who fails to kowtow to their idols, hence it's not defamatory.

It sounds an awful lot like the gamergate talking point that everyone knows death threats and rape threats on the internet are meaningless, so it's no big deal if feminist women are targeted with death threats and rape threats.

It's saying "What we do doesn't count, because everyone knows we're just kidding around, right? Right?", when everyone knows you're in fact completely serious and that's the problem.
 
If you feel you've been libeled by a Twitter block list, then by all means go ahead and file a lawsuit.

Be sure to let us know what happens.
 
A'isha said:
If you feel you've been libeled by a Twitter block list, then by all means go ahead and file a lawsuit.

Be sure to let us know what happens.
Click to expand...


While we're waiting for the court cases to proceed, perhaps you could provide balance by discussing some historical examples of good socially progressive causes being advanced by the compilation and dissemination of public blacklists.
 
Myriad said:
While we're waiting for the court cases to proceed, perhaps you could provide balance by discussing some historical examples of good socially progressive causes being advanced by the compilation and dissemination of public blacklists.
Click to expand...

As Ken Clark pointed out, a Twitter blocklist being kind of a dumb and even potentially counterproductive thing does not make it illegal.

If you don't like blocklists, simply don't use them. I don't. I don't even use the ignore list feature here.
 
A'isha said:
As Ken Clark pointed out, a Twitter blocklist being kind of a dumb and even potentially counterproductive thing does not make it illegal.
Click to expand...


Did I say anything about illegal? (Answer: No, I did not.) I asked for historical examples where public blacklists have advanced a good cause.

If you don't like blocklists, simply don't use them. I don't. I don't even use the ignore list feature here.
Click to expand...


Did I ask anything about your preferences, or about myself? (Answer: no, I did not.) I requested that you provide a basis for discussion about whether promotion of public blacklists can be justified on the basis of being a demonstrated social good.

Without such a basis, and given historical examples of demonstrable harm (e.g. McCarthy's blacklists), isn't the rational conclusion to actively oppose them, rather than to simply ignore them unless one is personally affected?
 
Myriad said:
Did I say anything about illegal? (Answer: No, I did not.) I asked for historical examples where public blacklists have advanced a good cause.
Click to expand...

I don't actually care whether they have or not. I certainly don't care whether a list that blocks people on Twitter for you if you sign up for it advances any kind of good social cause or not. On my list of curiosities and concerns it ranks somewhere between "why do hot dogs come in packages of eight and buns come in packages of ten" and "who put the bomp in the bomp, bomp, bomp".

Without such a basis, and given historical examples of demonstrable harm (e.g. McCarthy's blacklists), isn't the rational conclusion to actively oppose them, rather than to simply ignore them unless one is personally affected?
Click to expand...

I do, however, think that comparing a list that allows you to block people on Twitter to McCarthy's blacklist is ridiculously alarmist.
 
Last edited:
A'isha said:
I do, however, think that comparing a list that allows you to block people on Twitter to McCarthy's blacklist is ridiculously alarmist.
Click to expand...


Is that all the list does? Obviously not, because the part of the database that attaches individual labels such as "racist" and "rape apologist" to individual listees is utterly unnecessary for that function.

Why is the comparison alarmist, rather than merely valid? The intended outcome (denying employment to persons deemed undesirable for their past views or connections) and the types of corruption (lack of oversight or concern about whether any given listee is actually deserving of the censure, and opposition to the list being used as justification for listing) are the same, and most likely so will be the actual ultimate outcome (a swing of public political opinion toward condemnation and rejection of the list and its perpetrators).

What's the difference between "if you don't like blacklists just don't use the block bot" and "if you don't like slavery just don't buy any slaves?" When is concern over how other people are wronged justified, and when is it not?
 
Myriad said:
Is that all the list does? Obviously not, because the part of the database that attaches individual labels such as "racist" and "rape apologist" to individual listees is utterly unnecessary for that function.
Click to expand...

Okay, so it allows individuals who use to it to also say mean words about the people being blocked. Now I care even less.

Why is the comparison alarmist, rather than merely valid? The intended outcome (denying employment to persons deemed undesirable for their past views or connections)
Click to expand...

If anyone is using the list to deny employment, that's on them, not on the makers of the list. Unless you're asserting that the list makers are forcing employers to reject applicants who are on it or something.

and the types of corruption (lack of oversight or concern about whether any given listee is actually deserving of the censure, and opposition to the list being used as justification for listing) are the same, and most likely so will be the actual ultimate outcome (a swing of public political opinion toward condemnation and rejection of the list and its perpetrators).
Click to expand...

Considering the nature and purpose of this very thread and the discussion within it, it's a little late (not to mention hypocritical) to start pearl-clutching about one group of people on the internet saying mean things about and condemning another group of people on the internet.

What's the difference between "if you don't like blacklists just don't use the block bot" and "if you don't like slavery just don't buy any slaves?" not?
Click to expand...

Because one involves involuntary enslavement of human beings, and the other involves getting blocked on *********** Twitter.
 
A'isha said:
Okay, so it allows individuals who use to it to also say mean words about the people being blocked. Now I care even less.
Click to expand...


Yes, you've made your unconcern over corrupt libelous blacklisting very clear.

If anyone is using the list to deny employment, that's on them, not on the makers of the list. Unless you're asserting that the list makers are forcing employers to reject applicants who are on it or something.
Click to expand...


Does that excuse work for the fundie groups who publish names and addresses of abortion doctors? They, too, claim they never intended anyone to use their blacklists for anything other than informational purposes.

Considering the nature and purpose of this very thread and the discussion within it, it's a little late (not to mention hypocritical) to start pearl-clutching about one group of people on the internet saying mean things about and condemning another group of people on the internet.
Click to expand...


Speaking of hypocrisy, if people saying mean things on the Internet isn't anything to be very concerned (aka "clutch pearls") about, why was there a heavily media-promoted list of people alleged to have said mean things on the Internet?

Because one involves involuntary enslavement of human beings, and the other involves getting blocked on *********** Twitter.
Click to expand...


No, the other involves being publicly blacklisted and branded (either explicitly or by association) things like "racist" and "rape apologist," in most cases without justifiable cause, by an organized, corrupt, and unaccountable system.

The "if you don't like X, don't contribute to X" argument, for any injustice whether it's slavery, homophobia, police brutality, or in this case blacklisting, is always reprehensible. The magnitude of the injustice only determines between great evil and tawdry evil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom