1 TruthFriction says...

I am a witness to the moderator turmoil that is described above. The current state of Yeago's post at BoingBoing is that it has been disemvoweled. (A concept created by BoingBoing's current moderator Terresa Nielsen Hayden, in which an offending post has all of the vowels removed via a premade script.)

There was never any explanation given as to why Yeago's post was edited. Several other posts were either deleted or disemvoweled as well, with the only explanation being given that the posts were created by "sockpuppets." My guess is that Yeago was disliked for his negative review, and rather than have it prominently shown on BoingBoing, the moderator choose to censor it.

When I saw several posters being accused of sock puppetry naturally I decided to step in and help defend them, because I had just gone through a similar situation.

A few weeks ago I noticed several of my posts in a thread had been completely deleted. I sent the moderator and editors an email asking them why this had happened. I offered not to post any more until I got an explanation, as I did not want to continue to violate whatever rule I had inadvertantly broken.

While waiting I read through all the posts I could remember making in an attempt to find out what I had done that was so offensive.

Finally I found this thread: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/21/first-high-school-de.ht ml

21 posted by Teresa Nielsen Hayden/Moderator Author Profile Page, September 26, 2007 7:53 PM:

I had apparently been labeled a "sockpuppet" without any evidence of such being presented. I had been lumped into a list of name that I had no association with. I wrote the moderator and editors again offering to prove that I am indeed a real person and not a sock puppet. I offered to confirm my identity via a telephone call or snail mail (by sending a copy of my driver's license) if need be.

I still did not get a response so I created another account to publicly ask why I had been banned.

I discussed what had happened with some of my friends who blog and they believed that I could have been banned because I use the Tor Network to post.

A few years ago a hacker did a whois lookup on my work IP address while I was having a political argument on another website. He then proceeded to fax my boss several pages of spam that accused me of wasting company resources. Because I am the only person at my company with my first name, my boss found me easily and blamed me for the spam. Since then I have used the Tor network and other means to help protect my identity.

After several public posts offering to prove who I am, I finally decided to post using my real IP address. Presumably this was enough proof for the moderators because since then I had not been banned after posting under my real IP.

Then today, when I posted my defense of those being accused of sock puppetry, I found myself banned once again:

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/03/0wnz0red-in-swedish....

55 posted by Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator Author Profile Page, November 5, 2007 11:31 AM:

TruthFriction is just another one of the sockpuppets that have put on a show in this thread over the weekend. TF is now permanently banned, as are all his sibling sockpuppets. The person responsible for them is no longer welcome. If we spot any new sockpuppets or previously unidentified old sockpuppets created by that user, that identity's comments will be deleted.

Note to everyone else: Please don't be alarmed. It's taken a great amount of determined and malicious bad behavior by this user, plus his complete disregard of multiple warnings, explanations, and lesser disciplinary actions, for us to get to this point.

What is so strange about her post is that if she did indeed ban several accounts there, then she banned several individuals on the whim of an accusation. I have only posted on BoingBoing as the name TruthFriction. You can see several of my other posts attached to other threads on that day that lend more evidence to the fact that I am indeed a real person. Why would I respond to unrelated articles if I were not real?

I know that BoingBoing is a privately owned site, but it is a bit hypocritical for a site that claims to be the bastion of free speech to censor so many people without evidence.

In my opinion, there was no reason to censor or ban Yeago. When you censor criticism without rebuttal, then you might as well be stating that the criticism is true. It appears that BoingBoing has hired a moderator to be their bulldog so they can sit back and pretend innocence for the censorship that she wields.

Posted at 11:02 p.m. on November 5, 2007

2 TheCynic says...

Oh god, this is all so delicious.

Behold! It is I! The original "TheCynic". I'll spill the story. I find it oh-so-ammusing.

<I>Once upon a time</I> I was a Boing Boing reader. I often don't agree with the politics of BB but I always enjoyed their "cool stuff" bloggings. When they created a comments section, naturally I started voicing my opinions about the politics.

I never flamed, threatened, used foul language or any of that. I would challenge Teresa to present a single post I made as TheCynic that was problematic in any way other than I didn't agree with her.

What got me banned, in fact, was my objection to her moderating style. I pointed out several examples of posts that were mangled by her that shouldn't have been (they said nothing wrong other than they disagreed with her or the editors) and pointed out several things which supported her side of a debate in a very rude manner but which were NOT mangled by her and I wanted to know why the double standard. Boom, banned.

She banned my home IP and my work IP, where I sometimes posted from.

I don't support her methods and I imagined that neither did the BB editors, who go to great lengths to trumpet free speech and the ability to post differing opinions. So, eventually, I downloaded Firefox and Tor (which I found in BB's own "Defeat Censorware" section, which is ironic in itself) and was able to create more accounts and keep posting.

I think right around there is when I broke Teresa. :(

Before too long, she seemed to simply be banning anyone she thought might be me. I think she simply bans anyone who 1) Uses Tor, 2) Uses Firefox, and 3) Says anything she doesn't totally agree with. Although I think now she's up to simply banning people who engage in #3, all of which are obviously me!

Of course, you are not me (or ARE YOU... dun dun dun!). TruthFriction, Nutkin, etc, are also not me. In the thread where "90%-95%" of the objectors were supposed to be me, I can say that MAYBE 5% was me because I did post under one old sock puppet's name, which she got with her shotgun attack of banning everyone, but I think I only posted 1 or 2 comments there. The rest was, well, you and a bunch of other people who are now accused of being me. Unless all of you use Tor and Firefox, I have no idea what her criteria is anymore.

I feel a little guilty, because I know some people probably HAVE to use Firefox and Tor to access Boing Boing, because of government or ISP filters on their internet. And now they can't post to BB because they're all going to be accused of being me. I only feel a "little" guilty, though, because ultimately it's Teresa's fault.

I would love to see a complete list of everyone she's banned for being me, just to see how many weren't. I'm sure most people just don't know how to get around the issue and stop right there, so we really only hear the objections of the determined few. I don't follow the threads closely enough to remember the names of the people who aren't there anymore.

Her IP bans are kind of interesting too.

I have cable internet at home. Unplug cable. Wait. Plug cable back in. Hey, new IP.

My work IP is a proxy for an entire corporation of over 20,000 people. They're all banned from posting on Boing Boing now because they all look like me. One of my more immediate co-workers used to post there and can't now. He tried to appeal to the editors and explain that he wasn't me and in fact over 20,000 people share that IP address but he never even got a reply. That IP is still banned, last I checked.

So basically, Teresa's fat-headedness is destroying Boing Boing's credibility, just like it's ruined her own community. Go take a gander at her own blog and see if you agree. I read several threads of comments and it's all mindless group-speak from drones. All dissenting views are mangled. That's what she's bringing to Boing Boing: disagree and go bye bye.

And the editors obviously approve. I don't know about you, but the first thing I tried to do before creating sock puppet #1 was take up this issue with them. I dug up their emails and emailed the lot of them. Initially it was confusion from me because I didn't realize what had happened. I thought it was just some glitch that was stopping me from posting. Silence. Nothing but silence from the editors. Obviously they approve of this censorship. It's funny -- they will talk about the evil deeds of AT&#38;#38;T and YouTube and governments and how they abuse the power of censorship, but given the same power, they do the same thing in their own little domains.

Little mini-tyrants when given half the chance.

I think it proves that Boing Boing's editors are all fakers. BoingBoing is a promotional tool for a group of people with all of the integrity of Stephen Colbert -- personalities invented to be popular and make money while the person behind the facade has little in common with his own projected image. Except in Colbert's case, it's obvious and expected. In BB's case, it's just deceitful and I'm glad I was able to demonstrate it. I'd love to be wrong about this, but the editors have had months to sort out the problem and haven't bothered, so I claim "fakers". They don't live up to their own words.

And yes, Teresa's cutesy turns of phrase are revealing. "Disemvoweled" is something she apparently invented herself as a way of censoring people without censoring them. And she doesn't "delete" posts, she "depublishes" them. I've never seen a post get "republished" so the distinction isn't clear. And she doesn't like the word "censorship" because apparently only governments do that. What word we're supposed to use to describe "The act, process, or practice of censoring" isn't clear, but I'm sure she has some other cutesy make-believe word for it that somehow excuses it in her own mind.

Oh, if you decide to Fight the Power, try this: Download Firefox Download Tor (you can find the link to it in BB's "Defeat Censorware" section). Download the Tor plugin for Firefox Create a new email account Resume posting through Tor

The more people who do this, the more of "me" there will be. As it is I barely have to lift a finger and Teresa brings the world crashing around her ears through her own paranoid delusions.

I forget who said it, but someone earlier (probably deleted and banned by now) said how they wouldn't care if it was any other website, and I agree.

If this was being done by AT&#38;#38;T or the Ann Coulter Support Page I wouldn't give a shit. But when the people who speak freedom turn around and suppress dissent, I have to call foul. I say either they should put up or shut up. They should live it like they talk it or they should just sit down and shut up.

On the off chance Teresa ever reads this (and reads this far without exploding), it's true: it's all really me. Yeago is my super secret alter ego which I created years ago just to show up at this time and trick you into thinking it's not me! So is Kristen in fact. She's me after a good shave and a wig. Yep. All true. In fact, Boing Boing really only has 1 or 2 readers. The rest are probably me and should be banned.

• The Original Cynic

Posted at 1:25 a.m. on November 6, 2007

3 Yeago says...

And hilarity ensues. A lengthy and funny read. Presciently, I've found the same climate you describe at theresa's blog where <a href='http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009546.html#223670' rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">[my]</a> <a href='http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009546.html#223821' rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">[innocuous]</a> <a href='http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009546.html#223911' rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">[comments]</a> are garbled . See if you can decrypt my secret hate-filled messages. This practice of disemvoweling really just seems like a form of internet-snobbery. It certainly isn't levied with much consistency or discretion.

Thank for stopping by. <a href='http://tisstupid.stumbleupon.com/review/14062192/' rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">Oh how it ripples...</a>

Posted at 1:49 a.m. on November 6, 2007

4 CosmicDog says...

Bullshit. You need to practice using different words and phrases if you going to pretend to be other people. Quit being such a dick. You have your own blog to criticize Cory, Teresa, or anyone else, and nobody is trying to stop you from doing so. The fact that you don't have anywhere near the number of readers that BoingBoing or Making Light have is your fault, not theirs. Be more interesting.

Posted at 4:25 a.m. on November 6, 2007

5 Yeago says...

Cosmic, you're a fount of great advice. I was just about to compliment you on what <a href='http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009546.html#224256' rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">excellent advice</a> you gave mister TruthFiction. I couldn't have said it better myself.

"Be more interesting." - if only it were that simple. haha. and yet its about the only advice one can give.

Thanks for stopping by.

PS: I can repeat 'I'm not him / I'm not him' forever, but that's not very convincing. shrug I know who I am. We should arrange a conference call or something. =) But, oh couldn't that be just another strand in the scheme-web? OoOooo... wheels within wheels.

Posted at 4:38 a.m. on November 6, 2007

6 TheCynic says...

@Cosmic, Are you talking to me? I clearly don't need to vary my words and phrases since people <I>who are not me</I> are being banned for being me. That tells me that even if I go through the trouble of altering my genetic structure and memories so that I physically become a seperate human being and even if I move to another state and post from a different ISP, I will still get busted by the oh so sensitive nose of Teresa Hayden, because she can tell it's me even when it's not me. Which is a neat trick.

I do actually have more sock puppets that haven't been caught. There are other methods than Tor to change my IP, you know. One of my early tests was this: Create 2 sock puppets. Enter both sides of a debate. Use the exact same posting style for each account. Have one account disagree with the editors in a respectful manner. Change my IP. Have the other account disagree with the first account and support the editors.

Result: First account gets "found out" and banned. Second account is still active.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Go install Firefox and Tor and try it for yourself! Results guarenteed.

Actually I think if you post through Tor and just say something like, "Man, I really think this censorship is getting out of hand" that will probably be sufficient to get yourself accused of being me and banned.

Go on and try it, then come back and post your results. Join in on the hilarity!

Posted at 5:19 a.m. on November 6, 2007

7 TheCynic says...

Oh! The hilarity continues! I just saw a post from TNKO in that thread. It'll be gone shortly, I'm sure, but he got banned, too. I'll assume that none of you are him. I'm pretty sure I'm not him but <I>I just never know.</I> I mean damn, I could be <I>anyone</I>!

Maybe he'll google his name one day and find this site and have a good chuckle.

I remember seeing his posts in that thread but I don't remember what he had posted. I don't recall it being anything outstanding.

The really bizarre thing -- and this is what I just don't get -- I'd bet dollars to donuts that TNKO was not using Tor or posting from some strange IP. I really am dying to know what made Teresa so convinced that he was me.

I guess the real answer is that she just doesn't give a damn. "Sock puppet" is just another cute term she uses as an excuse.

Here's a snippet of TNKO's post, RIP: "You've turned a very loyal reader of 4-5 years, who left your link in countless internet explorer address bars while in college and now at work, who gave your link out and talked about you to people, into a former reader who will now speak to even more people than before about how he got banned from internet freedom-fighting website boingboing for complaining about censorship on its website."

You go, TNKO, <I>you go</I>. I have to root for you because after all, apparently you're me, which I guess means I'm cheering for myself? I'm not really sure how it works.

Posted at 5:59 a.m. on November 6, 2007

8 tamara r. says...

One more thing.

Do you think it'd be possible to add a "critisms" section to their wikipedia entry? Or would that violate NPOV?

I think I've seen such a section for other articles, and I think this issue is important enough to merit mention. I know some would try to revert, but if this url, stumbleupon, and the original posting were all cited, perhaps the wikipedians would see that it's valid enough to document.

Posted at 6:03 a.m. on November 6, 2007

9 Yeago says...

@tam: I'm pretty experienced in /wiki and I don't think such a section would fly. let's not get too scheme-ey here. Surely, I dislike being sitebanned as much as the next person... but I'd rather the wikipedia community discovered some mishap on their own rather than add content as part of some campaign.

if you want to try it...by all means.

Posted at 6:15 a.m. on November 6, 2007

10 tamara r. says...

I have been banned, and I'm definitely not your sockpuppet or anyone else's. I found your blog thru digg, where I had posted a link to the boingboing nonsense.

I could reiterate everything l've said already but I rather just post copies of the letters I wrote the BB editors. They include copies of my deleted comments, proof that I'm my own person, and describe my real feelings.

Initially I thought maybe the mods were just out of control, but the editors seem to just turn a blind eye to all this... ah well. There are other blogs.

My two emails to BB are below, I have split them to make them fit the comment section:

Posted at 6:22 a.m. on November 6, 2007

11 tamara r. says...

EMAIL1 <blockquote> ... am I completely offbase.

Cory, I'm writing this to you and all the BB editors, because I believe in you all and it's hard for my heart to attribute what's going on to anything but an overzealous response by someone in your employ.

Cory wrote a post about the latest translation of his book. From what I can tell, a few folks criticized him for selfpromotion, to which Cory wrote a very apt reply. By the time he replied, all the critical posts had been deleted or "disemvowelled."

I wrote a few posts critical of this form of silencing. Two of them are still there, but my latest has been deleted by the moderator.

I believe my latest comment has been deleted because one of the moderators is trying to cover their tracks from you Editors. The tone of my latest comment was the same, but it points out that some of the posts have been deleted. I believe they are trying to hide from y'all the fact that they deleted harmless, insightful, comments.

I am including my deleted post (I saved it suspecting something may happen) and a link to the my other comments, so you can decide for yourself if my third post is more "out of line" than my other two.

If you believe me to be reasonable, I hope you all sit down and discuss and write a moderation policy for your employees to follow.

Thank you for the years of blogging. I truly believe this can't be by your hands (why else would cory reply to a deleted post).

My comments are below, for comparison and evaluation:

Comment 1, [Url deleted, spamfilter?]

Comment 2, [Url deleted, spamfilter?]

Comment 3,

29 posted by Tamara R. , November 4, 2007 6:50 AM :

Gosh. I woke up and checked this post one more time hoping to have some sort of chime-in from one of the editors, just so I could have some idea where they were coming from on the censorship policy.

I've come back to find a large swath of posts have been deleted. To those who believe that they wouldn't delete some posts and disemvowel others: I have now read firsthand the type of comments they choose to delete outright. Several were by someone satirizing the policy by disemvowelling his own posts, and one was pointing out that the policy is hit and miss and probably had more to do with silencing opposing views than protecting people's feelings. Pretty innoccuous stuff.

Whatever.

You've now made me seem like a lone voice, a kook. You've changed the conversation by removing much of the context.

I'm an old timey gnu-hippy, and freespeech fan. I've been reading and loving boingboing for years and one of the things I loved is how you all advocate for fans who are being bullied by companies they cheer for. But now that I've seen how BB reacts when it happens on their own lawn, I don't think I can take the site seriously anymore.

That said, I do realize that it is your lawn, and you're free to delete posts for merely dissenting if you so please... but that freedom won't save you from being hypocritical, you'll have to deal with that as long as you pretend to maintain your freespeech stance.

I think I've said everything I have to say. I'm leaving this discussion behind now. Unfortunately, I think I'm leaving the site behind now too... I don't think I can read it anymore without a smirk.

Please don't erase my comments. Please don't erase my context. Please don't erase my views. They're important to me, I took the time to write them down... please let you other fans read them.

Did that merit deletion? Am I being unreasonable?

Thank you all, Tamara

</blockquote>

Posted at 6:26 a.m. on November 6, 2007

12 tamara r. says...

EMAIL2 <blockquote> Apparently I've been banned from your forum for disagreeing with you moderators. They've done a good job of obscuring what's going on through widesweeping deletions.

I assure you I am no sockpuppet. You can search my email "mecenday" and find me across the internet, including a couple times in your comments before.

I will no longer be visiting your website. You are either being abusive, or allowing it to continue.

Hypocracy is a verb. It is something you do to someone else. It is the counterpart to cognative dissonance... you spread it to others through hypocracy. I wanted to believe in you folks, apparently my faith was misplaced.

Goodbye, Tamara

P.s. This was my final comment I wrote only to find I'm blocked. It was to be #57 behind billgible's 56.

Billegible,

It's people who are rude and contrary who are being muted. If you're rude and tow the line you're in the clear.

Comments 36 and 37 (until the numbers change again due to deletions) are at least as negative in tone as my deleted post was, they border on personal attacks, but the mods agree with the stance, so of course they stand.

maybe the problem is one of technique and technology. I suggest BB implement a real community-moderation system in the style of slashdot, or write and publish clear standards of moderation and allow the users to read them.

</blockquote>

The silence is deafening.

Posted at 6:27 a.m. on November 6, 2007

13 Charlie says...

This is all very interesting. I too have witnessed and experienced much of what has been documented here. (ie. disemvoweling or deletion for dissenting opinions)

I found this post from Hayden's husband Patrick on the Making Light site very telling:

"Teresa's (and my) approach to online moderation isn't remotely about being "fair to all views." Some views are wankery. Some arguments aren't so much trenchant as tiresome. The object of the game is to create a space where good conversation flourishes. If some tendentious dingbats feel they've been unfairly shut out, that's a bonus a reasonable price to pay."

Apparently many of you are tiresome wankers who should be shut out a conversation. My guess is that on certain days, all dissenting voices look like wankers to these two.

Posted at 7:32 a.m. on November 6, 2007

14 TheCynic says...

Hi, tamara!

Regarding Wikipedia, you can certainly add something to the Talk pages. Although a busy Talk page will eventually get archived out, I don't think a retraction of your criticism would be easily removed and attempting to do so could spark an interesting session. "NPOV" doesn't apply to the Talk page.

<blockquote> <b>Edit: With one small exception: discussion on article pages should relate to the article content and not serve as a general discussion forum for the topic. FYI.--Yeago</b> </blockquote>

Posted at 2:15 p.m. on November 6, 2007

15 tamara r. says...

Meh. I'm not going to bother with any wikipedia stuff. I've wasted enough time trying to get the BB crew to hold to their ideals... I'm done with trying. They haven't made the right decision out of their ideals, I'm not really interested in making them do it under pressure. And given the culture that aparently exists there, they'd only see wikipedia documenting the criticism as a pressure tactic.

::shrug::

I've spent a half week writing out arguments.. Only to be rebutted with a typo-flame... and to have other people on making light defend the flame.

This is a waste of time. It's clear where they stand and that no amount of reasoning will move them.

Consider me defeated.

Posted at 4:46 p.m. on November 6, 2007

16 Yeago says...

@tamara

don't be discouraged. CosmicDog probably thought I was being sarcastic but I refer you to his <a href='http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009546.html#224256' rel="nofollow">good advice to TruthFiction</a>. I think it was really well put.

Posted at 5:06 p.m. on November 6, 2007

17 tamara r. says...

I actually don't like his advice. There seems to be this might-makes-right meme floating around in their collective psyche. Pageviews are equated with correctness of an argument again and again. If you don't have a large blog with lots of hits your argument is invalid and you are free to be mocked.

Nevermind that I'm generally too busy in my reallife to care a flying about blogging.

It reminds me of the old gnu standby, "if you don't like a bug, fix it or fork it." Nevermind that most ppl aren't coders. I'm no journalist. I don't want to write my own blog. Telling someone to "do it yourself" is a dodge, and does not address the moral problem of a freespeech blog deleting users for questioning censorship.

We choose our battles. Why I chose "protecting the sanctity of the boinboing comment section" this week is beyond me. Something got under my skin, and I thought if I pointed out what was going on the right people would care and fix it. It seemed like a frivolous battle to pick at the time, but in hindsight, knowing the attitudes of the bb-crew it seems downright silly and wasteful.

Posted at 7:19 p.m. on November 6, 2007

18 TheCynic says...

Small update: Teresa caught back up with that thread and deleted TruthFriction's, Yeago's and TNKO's posts. What gets me is that there was nothing in your messages that warrented deletion, not by any reasonable measure.

I agree that it's probably a futile battle, as they've obviously made up their minds and won't listen to anyone, but I can't help but point out hyprocisy where it occurs and the more people who know, the happier I'll be. A lot of people are looking up to the BB editors as champions of free speech when in fact it's just a little publicity game they're playing and in reality they don't meet the demands they make of others.

Posted at 8:20 p.m. on November 6, 2007

19 Charlie says...

I think the reason those posts were deleted is fairly obvious. They were evidence of the debauchery that occurred there. If the entire thread had been left intact it would have made the censorship quite evident.

Each person that was banned had posted a dissenting message either against Cory or the moderation style. Each person had a distinct writing style and voice that would have been virtually impossible for anyone to puppeteer.

What really seems to have happened is that all dissenters were labeled "sockpuppets" in an attempt to justify their removal.

Like I posted earlier, the sockpuppet label is almost impossible to shake. No one wants to be associated with a sockpuppet because they are afraid they themselves will be accused of being one. (Which is justified considering that is percisely what happened to many of you in that thread. Because you chose to defend the right of the dissenting voice you were labeled a sockpuppet yourselves, and your opinion was discarded. )

Hayden seems to be mopping up as much evidence as possible to prevent any misunderstandings if someone should happen upon that thread and see the blatant censorship that occurred there.

Posted at 9:14 p.m. on November 6, 2007

20 Yeago says...

Once labelled, there's really no living it off no matter what you might say. Take for example a private email to <a href='http://www.greglondon.com' rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">Greg London</a>

<blockquote> from Steve to Greg London date Nov 6, 2007 9:44 AM subject Re: Suckpoppetry mailed-by gmail.com

I am nobody but myself, Greg. Stephen James Yeago.

I never visited or commented at BoingBoing before this weekend, and given the climate of paranoia and open intolerance of neutral complaints, I never will again.

Sorry you're the fool. In the Webster's sense, not in the rude one. It seems my comments did land in a flurry of sockpuppetry, and so I can understand your's (and Teresa's) reasons for mistaking me. There's something to be said for the benefit of the doubt, but if politeness and the ability to be read clearly are too much to ask, I won't even start.

Take care, best to you! Sorry this is how we had to meet. No hard feelings!

-Steve

PS: I'm going to ask Kristen to review Hunger Pangs. </blockquote>

Then see <a href='http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009546.html#224324' rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow" rel="nofollow">his grandstanding description of the above email</a>:

<blockquote>

402 ::: Greg London, November 06, 2007, 09:42 AM:

Mr. Yeago has emailed me offline with more insults. The one that stood out was "smarmy". As an added bonus, he's going to review my book Hunger Pangs.

What's the emoticon for rolling your eyes? All I can do is wink.

;) </blockquote>

He didn't even digest basic facts about my email, like that it doesn't even <i>contain</i> the word "smarmy", nor that I said I'd ask <i>Kristen</i> to review his online novel, not do it myself.

Posted at 9:50 p.m. on November 6, 2007

21 Teresa Nielsen Hayden says...

CosmicDog, any other real people --

TheCynic is the original sockpuppet-generating account that got suspended at Boing Boing. Charlie is a new sockpuppet I first sighted at Making Light. Tamara's part in all this is still an interesting question.

Posted at 8:02 p.m. on November 7, 2007

22 TheCynic says...

You're wrecking the credibility of the Boing Boing editors with your overzealous censorship of the readers. And dare I even ask who you think Charlie is a sockpuppet of?

And it's interesting that you think Tamara's part is "interesting". Is it possibly getting through to you that maybe, just maybe, I don't actually have the time or desire to generate sock puppets nonstop for 3 months and in fact quite a lot of them were actually real, live seperate people? Is that why it's interesting? Charlie isn't me. Tamara isn't me. Kristen and Yeago also aren't me. In the beginning when you first banned me I came back with other accounts but lately I haven't had to -- other people are saying what I wanted to say and they're getting banned for it, saving me the trouble. You need to start realizing the mess you're making and take responsibility for it. I don't like you but I do like Boing Boing and I honostly think the only reason the editors tollerate you is because they have no idea what's really going on and what damage you're really doing in there.

Occam's razor -- "the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible". If they look like different people, they probably are. Assuming that it's really me using some elaborate disguise that you cannot in any way prove is ... "interesting".

Posted at 9:42 p.m. on November 7, 2007

23 Yeago says...

Teresa,

TheCynic and everyone he may be has a welcome voice here. I have a soft-spot for Pariah's.

If you knew my aliases when I was younger and google'd around, you'd see why. =)

Posted at 2:07 a.m. on November 8, 2007

24 Charlie says...

Teresa:

I created an account on BoingBoing out of protest to how people were being dealt with in the Homeland Security High School thread,. (http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/21/first-high-school-de...) Yet, I also became a contributing commenter to BoingBoing, and I believe that I added meaningful dialog to many of the stories posted there.

For instance, I was the person who found actual comments from the mother of the child in this story: (http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/24/teacher-resigns-afte...) I originally thought I had been banned for posting those comments from the mother which is why I sent you the first email asking what had happened. I believe I added substance to that conversation by offering a first person perspective that was not being represented on that BoingBoing page.

I think you have mistaken me guarding my privacy with me being a puppet. I was a bit of a whiner and should have just given up on the process long ago. I only continued to post messages in the hope of having you hear me since all of my emails had been ignored. I also didn't want BoingBoing to become an overly censored blog, because I felt it was one of the few places on the web that was open and honest.

Yes, I am a bit of a nut on the net using pen names and what not, but I've seen people harmed by the things they post online.

My fiancee's best friend went for an interview in Arizona and they offered her a great salary to move there and work. She was so happy that she blogged about the experience in her LiveJournal. She used religious epitaphs thanking God for the job and the chance to work there.

When she went for her follow up interview she found their tone had changed completely. They offered her less money, and didn't seem very committed to having her in the new job. She went back to her LJ and blogged again, this time complaining about the experience. She received a phone call from the employer a few days later telling her that the job was no longer available to her. When she asked why, they told her that they had read her LJ and the things she had said.

Yes, one can argue that you wouldn't want to work for a company that Googles your Blog, but my guess is that any net savvy boss will these days. The difference here is that at least this company decided to tell her about it. What happens when you don't get the job and are never given an explanation as to why?

I offered you a copy of my identification because I wanted you to know that I was a real person. That probably was not the best decision to make because of the business you and many of your friends are into. If I somehow ever gained the skill and will power to become a published author my name could have ended up on a blacklist for my personal politics or simply for being a nuisance. (I'm not saying you would have done that, but please understand why I haven't just sent you a copy of my ID unwarranted.)

I thought you had seen that I was my own man when I started posting with my real IP address. You seemed complacent with me, and you even posted responses to me in one of the threads. That is why I was so surprised to be re-labeled a sock puppet again.

Being the moderator of BoingBoing, you have the power to limit and shape the opinions presented there. That's why I think you have to be so careful with how you wield your power. BoingBoing is a source of information for many people, and if dissenting voices are silenced out of suspicion, then it is possible that all sides of a story are not being heard.

Yes, I could start my own BLOG but I would never have the exposure or readership that BoingBoing does. As Tamara said, some of us just aren't cut out to be professional bloggers. We need sites like BoingBoing to inform us and to allow us to add to the collective opinion.

This is all have ever wanted to say to you. If you still want, I will prove to you that I am a real person. Irregardless, I probably will not return to BoingBoing's comment section, but I would like for you to know for sure that I am no one else but myself.

Posted at 6:35 p.m. on November 8, 2007

25 TheCynic says...

Footnote: I posted over on Making Light. It got deleted, of course, but the interesting bit is when they cleared out the text they added a footer that listed my IP address and added that it was "probably fake".

I posted from that IP address intentionally because it was the first one Teresa ever banned from Boing Boing. I wanted to use it to demonstrate that it was really a post from me but instead I ended up demonstrating that there really is no method to her madness. She has no way of identifying me even when I intentionally <i>provide</i> a way to identify me. She's literally become paranoid that anyone posting on BB or ML could be me in disguise.

So here we are: several loyal BB readers and commentors have quit in disgust and it seems likely to me that dozens more have done the same, as they got censored or banned without notice by a website that publically lauds the ability to criticize a service, even on the service you're criticizing (e.g., see this article: <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/29/new-att-terms-of-ser.html" rel="nofollow">New AT&#38;#38;T terms of service: We'll cut off your Internet connection for criticizing us</a> -- sound familiar?).

So like I said in my deleted messages, all I really want to see is one of the following:

A) Boing Boing lives up to the values they've been talking about on the blog and stop censoring criticism.

or

B) Boing Boing posts an "EULA" that says, "By commenting on Boing Boing you agree to not criticize us, our posts or our methods of moderating. Criticizing us will result in mangled or deleted messages and subsequent criticizing will result in a ban."

All I want is for them to do what they say or say what they mean. Don't tell us you stand for something and then go against that very thing.

Posted at 7:56 p.m. on November 8, 2007

26 Charlie says...

I'm all for a Bill of Rights for blog users. I think it is all too easy for someone to post outlandish and non-sourced opinions on the web and delete anyone who repudiates them.

Yes, if you don't like a blogger's opinion you can start your own, but that doesn't prevent the disinformation from being broadcast. Unless the reader can see the rebutal on the same page as the conjecture, then the information is not whole or complete. There should be an arbitration process for rejected users, and a clear history of what lead to that expulsion.

The Bill of Rights could start as a simple agreement that large blogs adhere to, and perhaps it would eventually be adopted by the rest of the web.

We're entering an age where speech is free, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be seen. In other words, if popular sites squander and censor live debate, then there will be many people who are only informed by one side of an argument.

Let's not allow the internet to go the same way as talk radio...

Posted at 10:52 p.m. on November 8, 2007

27 tamara r. says...

Charlie,

I dunno if I agree with all that. I do prefer systems such as digg or /. where "buried" comments are easily retrievable by interested observers. I also prefer systems where the community is self moderating because it's just plain more democratic. I think BB should move to such systems because it would be a better fit to their purported ideology.

However, there is a difference between "should" and "can," one that's really been the fuel for this fire. The moderator camp has been arguing from the position of what they can do. They can do what they want, it's their server... etc.

What we've been saying, or maybe I should speak only for myself, is what they should do, given their own ideology. I don't want to ever touch their "cans." LoL.

I think part of the clash is due to them not understanding that distinction. I'm not trying to take away their freedom to do what they want. I've only been trying to point out what they've been doing is in direct conflict with what they've been saying. And to suggest they might want to reexamine their hypocritical course before they run aground in irrelevance.

When I say that "fix it yourself" is a pat reply and a moral dodge, I don't mean to say they shouldn't be free to make such a dodge... only that they haven't fooled me with it.

I think their are plenty of domain issues, and implementation issues that would come with any binding Bill of Rights. I also think that the internet would just route around anything like that.

But moreover, I think a blog owner should be free to be as much of an ass as he or she wants to be. We do need to confront them and shame then when they act as such though. And we do need to illuminate hypocrisy when it shows up.

I think that now, between here, boingboing, makinglight, stumbleupon, and digg, someone wanting to know what really goes on at BB can put together a coherent conversation and decide for themselves. In that we've succeeded.

Posted at 3:49 a.m. on November 9, 2007

28 Yeago says...

I'd say that's all very well put, teresa. I also think such a 'Bill of Rights' is imaginative but quite unlikely to catch on.

To anyone that does follow this very lengthy exchange, I'd point them to <a href='http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/009546.html' rel="nofollow">those comments on makinglight</a> authored by C. Wingate.

Posted at 4:15 a.m. on November 9, 2007

29 Charlie says...

Thanks to you both for replying to my idea. I fleshed the idea out a bit more on the Making Light blog and would like to post that here so that you can get a better idea as to what I mean by a Bill of Rights.

I think it could work in one of several ways, but here's my idea: I think there should be a non-profit clearing house for creating and maintaining online entities. I give the clearing house my real id, and then I associate one or several web personalities with it.

Over the course of my web use, I give each website I register with my credentials from the clearing house. The website can look at my general status as a user and know my standing in the web world. They can then decide whether to approve my membership or not.

If the website I am using has a problem with me as a user, they suspend my account at their site, and raise a complaint to the clearing house. Prior to opening their website to members, the website has agreed to keep a clear history that follows complaints generated about any specific user.(as per the bill of rights) They have a history, not unlike Wikipedia, of the comments made by the user before they were moderated.

Well established and respected members of the web community are chosen each year to act as arbiters for any dispute that arise. They review the evidence given by the site, and rule on whether the handling of the user was fair or not. If the user is found guilty then they receive marks against their history. If the site is found guilty, then they receive marks against their status which eventually could mean they lose membership in the non-profit.

The website has every right to refuse acceptance of any user, but after so many favorably arbitrated users are rejected they will lose their membership.

I know there would be quirks to be worked out, but this is my general model. I think it would also be a positive for web sites wanting to allow anonymity while not allow the trash off the street in.

What makes blogs separate are the people who write them. Many people thrive in the blog world because they are not constrained by editors, or advertisers. Many of them are people who love free speech and loathe censorship.

Cooperation with such a bill of rights would be voluntary, and it wouldn't be for everyone. But if a user like myself was looking for a place that coveted free speech, then they would know right away if the site adhered to the bill of rights.

You're not forced to do anything, though some users might be more wary about participating at your site if they think their comments could disappear without an explanation. (as they so regularly do at BoingBoing)

There is a difference between raising a stink and never showering. Open dissent is necessary because it gives the information in the blog credentials.

I'm not saying you should let a free-for-all happen in your blog space, but dissent is a necessary recipe for any blog. Anyone's judgment or reasoning can be flawed, and that is why it is important to allow people who may not necessarily be your friend review your work. It keeps us all honest, and it makes information more valuable.

Posted at 4:45 a.m. on November 9, 2007

30 TheCynic says...

Regarding Tamara's post: I actually don't support community moderation because I think it simply leads to censorship of unpopular viewpoints. YouTube comments are moderated by the public but the ones that are voted down (and thus automatically hidden by the system) may not be offensive or hateful in any way. What they were downvoted for is for simply saying something that a majority of people didn't like hearing.

In a blog with politics like Boing Boing, I think that would be a consistant mess. Whichever side was more popular would be upvoted and the other side would be downvoted.

The human moderator approach is still the best, IMO, but you need clearly defined rules for the moderation and those rules need to be published. Boing Boing's main problem right now is that they have no defined rules -- readers have no idea what's acceptable to post and the moderator has no idea how the editors want their comments moderated, so she just brought over her own inappropriate method from another website and if having a heyday in the absense of any direction.

Posted at 5:54 a.m. on November 9, 2007

31 Charlie says...

Cynic, I agree that community moderation generally fails due to group think, and I agree that human moderation is better, but I don't believe it should be unchecked.

I think that user's of popular sites need rights to protect the ability of their opinion to be heard. Of course, that's just my two cents worth.

A clear set of Rules would help Boing, but I think they're afraid to pen them as their moderator is inconsistent in how she performs her duties.

Posted at 6:02 a.m. on November 9, 2007

32 TheCynic says...

Oh, as long as this seems to be a repository of information regarding Boing Boing's practice of silencing readers, I wanted to point out something from Kristen's review: "To defend themselves further, they routinely misrepresent the content of deleted posts and private emails from banned users."

Now take a gander at this: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/29/new-att-terms-of-ser... From Teresa, "TruthFriction3 (74), this is pathetic. You haven't offered to verify your existence via phonecall, from your home or otherwise. You haven't offered to mail me a copy of your drivers' license. You're about as truthful as a professional street beggar."

Actually, I remember seeing him make those offers -- to give out a phone number so someone could call him or mail a photocopy of his driver's license, etc. I was really curious as to if they'd take him up on it and what would come of it if they did.

She actually had the nerve to delete the offers and then call him a liar for not making them.

And you notice she doesn't continue the conversation here, where she can't cover up our responses and then lie about their contents. She'll only talk about it on BB or ML where she can edit our messages.

Posted at 6:26 p.m. on November 9, 2007

33 tnko says...

hey, it's a reunion!

i just posted on the digg article on this, and now posting here.. i admit i kinda miss boingboing, it's a tough habit to break. i was on google hoping that maybe they had made a statement about what happened, an apology or something so i can go back to reading the site, but i don't think it's happening and its time to forget about it.

i don't know if they're still convinced i am a "sockpuppet". it's seriously hard to prove i'm my own person and not someone else over the internet. i guess having a blog isn't enough.. should i link to my facebook and myspace too?

i've never been banned or silenced from anywhere or by anyone in my life before boingboing. it's a shitty feeling to be silenced, especially when you feel like you've got something to say. I just felt they shouldn't delete comments. I was disturbed that comments had been deleted, and it just didn't sit well with me because it was BOINGBOING.. it's like finding out your parents aren't perfect, you know. it's a reality check.

i can't imagine what it's like to live in china, in pakistan, in burma, where censorship applies to everything. i got just a tiny little taste of that, obviously, cos it was just some website.. but it still hurts. it's just shitty. i wasn't trolling. i wasn't name calling anybody. yet i'm a sockpuppet, i'm 5 different people in one. sigh man...

and then everyone agrees with them.. it's such a bizarre feeling you know.. someone yelling at you to shut up.. and then another person,.. and another.. a whole website agreeing that i'm a sockpuppet and should be banned.... all because i said i didn't think boingboing should delete comments.. felt to me like THEY were the sockpuppets lol

they could've said "well we're deleting them anyways" and have it be the end. but they banned me instead.. it's just really bizarre, just really bizarre. and its weird, but having this happen the same week as the whole pakistan situation has really made me think about my life and my work and what i should really be doing with my life.. this mentality of censorship just needs to be stopped. why are we so afraid to listen to other people, to read and hear different opinions.. why do we feel the need to control.. why do we group all people that disagree with us into a group and give them a name.. oh the terrorists.. oh the liberals.. oh the republicans.. oh the sockpuppets.. it's the same all over the place, all sides, all sorts of people. its not just fascists and whatever.. it's the freedom-loving liberals as well. so i guess, thank you boingboing, for leading me to a better path in life? for inspiring me

it's been like a week now? i'm still not over it. i refuse to be silenced. boingboing is dead to me now, but i'll never forget this.....

Posted at 3:49 a.m. on November 10, 2007

34 TheCynic says...

Did you email the editors, tnko?

It won't work, but you'll have further internal justification when they don't answer you.

I figure eventually someone with a highly popular blog of their own will get silenced for being a sockpuppet, blog about it and that'll finally get the truth out. Of course, it'll be all, "Oh we had no idea" and "It must have just been a bug" and "None of the effected users ever emailed us about this issue".

Remember, there are still ways to post if you want: 1) FireFox + Tor + Firefox plugin for Tor. Actually worth installing anyway just to check it out, because it's a pretty cool concept. 2) Unplug router and cable/DSL modem overnight. Plug it back in the next day. Get new IP. Resume.

Also, Charlie has a very interesting project in mind to counteract censorship. We'll see how that goes.

Boing Boing is a popular site that pretends to be a rallying point for free thinkers and artists, so they really have no excuse for this behavior. Teresa is just getting herself in deeper because the problem is only going to get worse. Her own website may be a den of groupthinkers working under the good ol' boy system but Boing Boing appeals to a totally different audience -- the kind of audience that is going to be increasingly displeased to find their comments mangled, the posts deleted and their accounts banned simply for disagreeing with the editors or the moderator herself.

As an item of interest, search Boing Boing for "th". That seems to do a good job of picking up disemvoweled comments and there are quite a lot of them for such a short period of time. Telling.

Posted at 4:34 a.m. on November 10, 2007

35 TheCynic says...

Oh! Interesting link: http://www.boingboing.net/2002/11/25/disemvowelment-antit...

Cory Doctortow finds disemvoweling to be "highly amusing".

Posted at 4:59 a.m. on November 10, 2007

36 tnko says...

i might email later, but honestly after reading that makinglight link i think their reply would be something along the lines of: "SOCKPUPPET!!!!1"

i'm not interested in posting or reading their website if that's their attitude. they clearly don't want me around, so i won't bother them. people like that get what they deserve in the end, so i'm not bitter about it. i just hope that i can be a better person in my life and don't treat people like worthless shit-for-brains like they've treated me.

Posted at 5:39 a.m. on November 10, 2007

37 tamara r. says...

The email response is more likely to be an extended silence. =). None of the editors have returned my emails.

CosmicDog reached out to confirm that I was a real person. At that point the crowd still assumed I was a sockpuppet despite having a clear path to my myspace, livejournal and whatever else. Kudos to him for actually doing something other than making empty accusations.

Teresa emailed me yesterday. It was a response to a letter I sent her earlier this week. Her reply was 10 words long and had no new information... I'm not sure what she was hoping to get across. ::shrug:: At any rate I used the oportunity to give her a bit more of my perspective.

If you do write the editors, I'd make it pretty simple... don't invest too much energy in arguing something they probably won't listen to. I would probably just state your case, provide links to prove you're real, and post a link to this page in case they don't have it yet.

At this point, I have a hard time believing that the editors don't know what's going on... but who knows? Maybe they're still in denial, and maybe a simply stated email would break them of it.

Posted at 3:59 p.m. on November 10, 2007

38 TheCynic says...

Teresa making more friends: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/09/amy-crehores-deja-vu...

One of the disemvoweled posts was simply requesting that Cory cover more artists. rolls eyes How dare you people request variety! Trolls! Aieeee!

Yeago, didn't you have "yeago.net" in your Boing Boing profile? It's not listed there now, as far as I can tell. Did I remember wrong, did you remove it or did Teresa remove it so as to help keep anyone from finding out about it? (dun dun dun!)

I also agree with Tamara regarding the idea that if anyone decides to make an argument of this to the editors, keep it simple. 1) They probably won't read it anyway 2) If you have 5 good points to make, pick the best 1 and make it because even if they do read it, they'll probably only skim it and end up missing a couple of your points anyway.

Posted at 3:51 a.m. on November 11, 2007

39 Charlie says...

Now granted I had quite a few shots of saki tonight, but I don't believe that those mangled posts deserved their fate. At this rate, it really is only going to be a matter of days until BoingBoing is synonymous with censorship. Who knows, it might even eventually lower the number of daily hits that they get.

I got one short email back from Teressa that really wasn't helpful, and I think writing the contributers is completely pointless. They are obviously aware of what is going on at their site, and they are complacent in the censorship that is occurring there. That 2002 message from Cory that Cynic found pretty much proves that.

The worst thing about BoingBoing squashing dissent is what it is going to do to the information presented there. Many times BoingBoing only posts one side of an issue, and in the past your only recourse was to read the comments in order to get a better idea of the complete story. Now, that's not even possible.

Many people respect the information that BoingBiong presents, and they treat it as a news source. I only hope that a majority of BoingBoing users think to question what is presented there and use Google to properly vet the information.

I would love to find out what happened to the link to yeago.net.

Posted at 4:39 a.m. on November 11, 2007

40 Yeago says...

@36 Yep. Well if they've shunned us 4 out of mere suspicion they've done it to others. Even if this doesn't garner much attention, its at least a beginning of the chronicle. There is another thread on the 4th on digg that shows its all pretty routine over there.

As for the links to here, yep. Nixed. Why I oughtta... =)

Posted at 12:07 a.m. on November 14, 2007

41 TheCynic says...

I'm guessing "Poweroid" got banned, too: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/21/first-high-school-de...

He's "Poweroid 2" in the end with a disemvoweled comment where he seems none too pleased.

Assuming none of you were him, that makes 6: My banning for criticizing Teresa and then 5 other people (known so far) on suspicion of being me!

Posted at 5:09 p.m. on November 14, 2007

42 TheCynic says...

Update: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/15/terror-police-in-uk....

Looks like they banned user "NoneSuch". Quote from Teresa: "Anonymous, Nonesuch said that because he's pursuing a political agenda. Any time one of the Boingers writes an entry about misused tasers, overzealous security guards, multiple police officers jumping a nonthreatening protester, etc., Nonesuch pops up to declare that it never happened, and furthermore the officers were acting in self-defense, and anyway the guy had it coming to him."

One of his disemvoweled comments is quoting two conflicting news stories, one from the BBC that says a gun was pointed at the man's head and another from Yorkshire Post (I assume that's what it says -- I'm "re-emvoweling") that indicates no guns were present.

Welp, that sounds ban-worthy to me! How dare anyone cast doubt onto a story that favors the Boing Boing political position of "police are evil"?

I vote for Garrett as "next most likely to be banned". His comments are being disemvoweled for not toeing the party line in the taser comments.

I also wonder if Phasor3000 got banned. He used to side with me back in the day but I haven't seen him post in a long time. If so, that could bring our known total to 8 individual people banned not because they're trolls, but just because they don't always agree with Cory -- with Garrett probably a pending #9.

This could be like a new game show: "Predict the Banning", where we submit the names of posters who are going to get banned for disagreeing with Cory and give out prizes for whoever guesses correctly! Whee!

Posted at 6:08 p.m. on November 16, 2007

43 TheCynic says...

Interesting insight: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/27/driver-tasered-for-r...

Comment 44 from Teresa, "Igpajo (41), Scoutmaster's comment is still there. I put it on hold while I checked to make sure he was the same guy I remembered from earlier conversations."

Scoutmaster's comment (35) was later restored.

The interesting part is it means she initially censored his comment for some reason that (ostensibly) had nothing to do with its content -- if the content of the message was the problem, then why restore it later? She apparently thought he was someone else and that's why she removed his comment. Wait. Does that even make sense? Is this lady insane?

Posted at 1:21 a.m. on November 28, 2007

44 NoneSuch says...

NoneSuch here. Yes indeed, I got sacked. I had seen this site (I searched for "Boing Boing censorship" and eventually got here) but wasn't inclined to comment until 2 weeks passed and my "temporary suspension" was still on and nobody, not Teresa, Xeni, Mark or anyone I emailed ever replied to me. I was prepared to wait out the suspension like a good little poster but I was never told when it would end, I never got a reply to my email and I assume the ban is permanent at this point. I emailed again 2 days ago and still no reply, so that settles that.

And Teresa is a bold faced liar.

She lied in a post and said I was warned several times before my banning. I was never warned. She once told me to shove my comments up my ass but I'm not sure if that counts as a warning, really.

As far as I can tell, the cause of my banning was as TheCynic posted. I found two different conflicting reports on one of those TASER incidents and posted them, which got disemvoweled and then I was banned, so I figured I'd add my tale to this thread as my last hurrah.

Peace out, folks. I'm through with Boing Boing. They've got all the credibility of the Iraqi Information Minister with me now. Either they don't stand up for what they believe in or they don't believe in what they say.

Oh, I'll leave you with something else funny. This is the thread I attempted to reply to when I realized I was still banned: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/22/amnestys-unsubscribe...

In the end, Teresa is arguing with "RCM". Notice around post #112 she has run out of actual ability to debate the topic at hand and accuses him of being, get this, a <I>spy for the military</I>. Ah, that's right. He doesn't agree with her, she can't talk him off of his point so she accused him of being a <I>spy for the military</I>.

Yes, I think insanity is a possibility.

On the bright side, does the military seriously pay people to argue on the internet? ... Can I uh, can someone send me some contact info for that position? I would totally go for a job like that. Maybe I should ask RCM to hook me up! LOL!

Posted at 7:19 p.m. on November 29, 2007

45 TheCynic says...

Hey folks!

Check it out: http://dontcensorme.com (apparently featured on Wired) http://dontcensorme.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=71

I figure any further discussion might as well go there.

And no, I didn't start that website. :-p

(They beat me to it...)

Posted at 7:28 p.m. on November 30, 2007

46 Scooterbird says...

Hullo, folks. First time poster and all that. And I am not a sockpuppet of TheCynic, or anyone else, nor do I play him on TV.

I thought you may be interested in <a href="http://scooterbird.livejournal.com/292836.html" rel="nofollow">my comment on BB</a> that I posted to my LJ about two or three weeks ago.

I do still read BB from time to time, but I don't comment there, save for one anonymous comment...and I don't plan to start. Really, the most effective way of showing one's disapproval, generally, is to ignore them because they're not worth caring about.

Posted at 4:10 a.m. on December 3, 2007

47 Scooterbird says...

@42 Nonesuch, re military campaign to "correct the record" on torture, etc.: I would not be surprised if that was the case, though I've heard nothing to suggest it is happening. Peace groups have been infiltrated and such, so there might be something like that. It is more probable, I think, that individual members of the military and similarly minded people in positions of power are doing so of their own individual accord.

I too find that RCM repeats disproven points in an attempt to make them the solid truths that they are between his ears. Of course he hasn't yet been banned...

A tangential point is that I agree with BB's and Hayden's political stand, but I'm absolutely opposed with the way it is being wrought. Whether it's Rush Limbaugh cutting off a mic or Teresa Hayden deleting a post, it's ethically indefensible; if anything, it's worse when done on BB because of its reputation for anti-censorship activism. It's just compounded with hypocrisy in that case.

Posted at 4:27 a.m. on December 3, 2007

48 TheCynic says...

Good read, Scooter. To answer some of the comments you got, yeah, this whole debacle pre-dates the Amy Crehore post. That was just the latest flare-up at the time. The very first post that was open to comments had a lot of disemvoweling in it, though I didn't at the time even realize what it was -- I thought it was a bug in their new software.

I liked that you picked up on some of the very same things we'd already noted: her seeming refusal to recognize the dictionary definition of "censorship" and the ways she throws verbal tantrums that are often worse than anything she was censoring.

Seems like everyone is coming around except the BB editors themselves.

On the bright side, Cory just promoted his new book! I dare you to say anything negative about it...

Posted at 8:27 p.m. on December 3, 2007

49 Neenuh says...

An interesting find for all those who have criticized Doctorow and been censored by Teresa Nielsen Hayden. Sure this is no great secret, but it certainly adds context to the issue. Her husband is Corey's editor.

From a September 4, 2007 comment on a Doctorow post:

Locus column on the case for Creative Commons for sf writers September 4, 2007 8:39pm

Jon (2):

So, how do you convince your editor to let you do the Creative Commons thing? I'm sure the red cape helps, and maybe Charlie Stross would have better luck if he owned one. But if he's right that the major publishers want to buy (and sit on) ebook rights, and don't want to negotiate on this, what do you do?"

After considerable effort I managed to get an interview with Cory's editor, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, and asked him your question. He said:

1. Cory asked us.

2. He made a good case for his ability to do it effectively and well.

3. He also convinced us that even if it didn't work, we'd learn a lot from doing it.

4. Nobody's e-books were making a lot of money. It seemed like a sensible thing to try.

5. Charlie Stross's problems were with another publisher.

(This bit directly from Patrick: "We've let some other authors do this too. Peter Watts's superb SF novel Blindsight suffered from poor initial sales. After we let him post a CC-licensed e-text, it got linked and recommended by several prominent blogs, and hardcover sales picked up considerably. It's worth noting that both Doctorow and Watts did more than slap an e-text onto a server; they also went out and hustled up publicity.")

So there you go.

Posted at 2:38 a.m. on December 12, 2007

50 TheCynic says...

The latest flareup on Boing Boing -- <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2008/01/16/greasemonkey-script.html" rel="nofollow">Greasemonkey Script</a>

122 posts! (Not counting posts which have probably been deleted, of course.)

A user named Crash created a script that would let you exclude certain comment authors from ever appearing on your screen -- sort of like the old "killfile" from newsreaders of old. His tongue-in-cheek comment was "enjoy a BoingBoing experience untroubled by differing points of view". Mark posted it as a BB blog entry, which is interesting in itself (is he, perhaps, giving his own jab at Cory and Teresa?). Crash later explains in post #85, "I come to BoingBoing in order to hear differing points of view; my primary reason for reading here is to see insightful and thoughtful exploration of points that I may oppose very substantively."

I think Jeff at post #122 said it best (or at least, he said it best out of the posts which I can read and which are not disemvoweled), "That's because you didn't ask me what I'd done, and I had no reason to give all the slow details. I moderate all the time, in the real world, face to face with people. And for the most part I think 95% of problems can be nipped in the bud if you just talk nice to people. Maybe your style is more confrontational than most. Maybe it works best for you. Does it?"

A good question for her to internalize, though the answer seems obvious to me: No, it doesn't work best for her -- it's causing a more problems than it's solving.

But then, I guess that really depends on what her goal really is.

I also wonder about another impression I've been getting: Boing Boing has turned into the "Cory and Teresa Show" as the other editors have been distancing themselves from it. I seem to see a much lower ratio of blog entries from Mark, Xeni and David than I used to. I was using the Wayback machine to verify and just eyeballing it (e.g., compare <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20050102044320/http://boingboing.net/" rel="nofollow">this</a> (5 Cory posts out of 30 total -- he's about one-sixth of the content) to <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/30-week/" rel="nofollow">this</a> (63 Cory posts out of 121 total -- he's over half), it seems like the other editors post a lot less than they used to, relative to Cory. Could be any number of reasons for that, but I like to think that they see him shooting holes in their credibility and are going off to work on other projects while Cory and Teresa sink the ship.

Posted at 7:34 a.m. on January 20, 2008

51 Someone cue that &#38;#8220;O RLY?&#38;#8221; owl says...

[...] Someone cue that &#38;#8220;O RLY?&#38;#8221;&#38;nbsp;owl Posted on 26 January 2008 by scooterbird Two things: first, I recently read about Cory Doctorow, the author/blogger/activist/Boing Boing guy, being described as a &#38;#8220;polymath&#38;#8220;; I believe this was on 43 Things or something.  That seems like a good thing to be, and I suppose in the abstract I&#38;#8217;ve considered myself something of a polymath due to my various pursuits as a computer engineer, writer, businessman, politician, actor, religious minister, and, of late, journalist, though I would guess that &#38;#8220;dilettante&#38;#8221; might be closer to the truth.  Given the description of Doctorow, however, I&#38;#8217;m not as sure.  His writing, be it in a book, on a blog, or otherwise, all seems to be related to his political activism (which I broadly agree with, btw) in some fashion&#38;#8230;and his intelligence, in this or indeed in any field, might be better demonstrated by, for example, not having associates censor those who criticize your novels when you yourself are an anti-censorship activist (here&#38;#8217;s a more illustrative example), or perhaps not suggesting database information leaks should be treated the same as nuclear accidents.  These things don&#38;#8217;t say &#38;#8220;polymath&#38;#8221; to me as much as &#38;#8220;person with a serious lack of perspective&#38;#8221;, and these and other statements were enough to get me to rethink having him on my list of people I&#38;#8217;d like to meet on the aforementioned 43 Things. [...]

Posted at 10:21 a.m. on January 26, 2008