Valleywag
Since Kathy Sierra, the developer and writer, accused anonymous commenters yesterday of death threats, bloggers have posted up their condolences, and outrage, as if this dispute were the geek equivalent of 9/11, and Techmeme some impromptu memorial wall. Her distress is real: she pulled out of a speaking engagement at this week's Etech conference, in fear for her life. And the sympathy for her plight is deeply felt, particularly among web writers familiar themselves with the sting of the online insult, and white male geeks who fear that they'll otherwise seem insensitive to women. But someone has to ask: have the blogs, in this vast outpouring of grief and recrimination, gone too far?
One of the reasons a spate of nasty adolescent name-calling became such a story is this: Sierra accuses web personalities such as Chris Locke, co-author of the Cluetrain manifesto of online marketing, of complicity in the bullying she suffered. Locke, also known as Rageboy, helped set up Bob's Yer Uncle, the site on which the most unpleasant slurs against Sierra appeared.
Locke's own career is founded on his promotion of authentic communication. And, often, especially in the comment threads on sites he's associated with, authentic has verged into the authentically unpleasant. In an interview, posted overnight, he admitted to posting himself two comments on the site. "Kathy Sierra is a hopeless dipshit," he wrote. And, in a reference to her book, Creating Passionate Users, he noted: "The only 'passionate users' I know are crack heads."
Not nice. But par for the course in a robust online discussion. And "dipshit" — while crude — is not in itself evidence of the misogynism that the hand-wringers say colors the tech industry. As for the anonymous comments, which were much crasser than his own words, Locke claims he immediately took down the entire site when he read Sierra's complaint. (Though the Wordpress notice on the suspended blog says that it was closed for terms of service violations.)
The facts won't help Locke much. A cry of misogynism pretty much shuts off debate. The marketing guru, an abrasive character by his own account, has no defenders. (Update: Dave Winer is one of the few who stands out against the chorus of cowardice.) The bloggers are behaving like a lynch mob, or a US president, looking for someone to string up, or a country to invade. Sierra is upset, traumatized, even; but it's Locke's reputation which will be, possibly quite unfairly, soiled by her accusation.
I think her response, as it pertains to anything I personally wrote, was unjustified — but highly effective — character assassination. As a result, I'm sure I'll be explaining for years to come that I'm not really an ax murderer and child molester. Nice work. [Chris Locke, in a transcript of the interview, on his own site.]
Comments
Right or wrong, when you call yourself RageBoy and brag about the fact that many people consider you a prick, well, you probably shouldn't bother waiting for the troops to rally to your defense.
Well, I'm suspicious of conventional wisdom quite so unthinking, and unanimous. So far, I haven't read anything that proves Locke's complicity in this incident. And, if it was a crime merely to be considered a prick, the jails would be full.
Shelley Powers, on Burningbird, has a judicious post on this whole kerfuffle.
http://burningbird.net/connecting/disappointed/
Nick: hopefully no one ever writes about you or someone you love in the terms that that site wrote about my wife, Maryam. She was definitely hurt by it. If it's your intent to inflict pain on people, do realize your words do do their damage.
@Scobleizer: Hey, Robert, the comments on that site were gross. And comments about one's family can clearly be even more hurtful than personal abuse. But Chris Locke, despite appearances, is human too, and he has a reputation, which has been trashed, without much thought. Is that something you think is justified?
The internet is hard :(
I think Ethan's comments summarized my thinking on this. Of course what happened to Kathy Sierra is bad. But bad stuff happens every day to people with less-important friends -- somehow, this incident got tagged with moral outrage.
In the category of things I never thought I'd say, I agree with Dave Winer: "the mob that's going after them looks a lot more dangerous than they do."
Nick: you do know something about trashing reputations, don't you? You don't seem too worried about anyone's reputation except for Chris Locke's. I've seen your site sully all sorts of reputations. And, how many times have I been on Valleywag the past month? I lost count at seven. Glad to see you finally worrying about reputations of bloggers.
I'm confused. Chris Locke created a site designed to trash people, right? That was the purpose of meankids, and it seems to have been the purpose of the bob's site. So in the end, he gets trashed. Poetic justice, no? Why does he need defending? Why does he even care? When the free speech is directed in his direction, it becomes character assassination? That's really rather beautiful hypocrisy in action.
The right to not be unduly attacked applies to both sides. An individual should not be physically, sexually or their ability to work threatened. People have a right to respond in expressing their values to such an attack. But, facts need to clear and correctly assigned to those threatening. And guilt by association only goes so far.
@Scobleizer: Robert: I'm delighted you're engaging in the comments, and look forward to understanding how your own reputation has been unfairly sullied. But aren't you supposed to be on blog strike?
just a factual comment here. I looked at the original Uncle Bob site, before it had the TOS violation notice from WordPress - all content had been deleted, but the site was still there. WordPress must have declare the TOS violation later.
So Locke is telling the truth when he claims he deleted the entire site, prior to the current TOS violation notice.
I agree the "blogosphere" is going too far with this. I've seen much, much worse, with zero consequences or even reaction. I get the feeling Ms Sierra hasn't been a long-term net user.
And I would remind everyone that this is nothing but freedom of speech in action. As far as I can see there was no credible death threat - just some comments Ms Sierra found intimidating or disturbing. Horrible I'm sure and Sierra has my general sympathy but nothing but a speck in the tidal flow of information ..
My feeling from all of this is nothing so much as this is the moment a bunch of closeted, naiive Californians realised that hey, there's bad people out there in the world! It's not just my circle of SXSW-going Twitter buddies! It's not a walled garden after all! Who would have thunk it.
Chris' reputation is built on being a muck raker and shit starter. I find it laughable that we are having a conversation about his reputation being tarnished when he and his friends have built a number of empires where he can be king of the muck rakers and shit starters. I don't think that being called names bothers him and if he really didn't want to be involved in this kind of situation he wouldn't be hosting sites where it is considered funny to call women bitches and describe how you will kill them. Nor do I think he would have commented on the record or referred to himself as a victim of Kathy's actions. By all appearances this is exactly what Chris loves. And that's fine, but he's not getting much sympathy for reveling in the pain of others. He'll have to get his kicks the way all trolls do, by trolling.
I think there's a bit of anti-backlash-backlash going on -- now it's all about how this is freedom of speech and piling on Chris Locke is unfair. That's bullshit. WendySharp is right -- RageBoy set up a site to tear people down and it backfired on him. That's justice. And to say that what was posted about Kathy Sierra should just be ignored and/or tolerated is also bullshit. Tolerating it is why it keeps on happening.
Eth0, for someone who wants everything to be based on the facts, you shouldn't be writing about your "feelings" about how long Kathy Sierra has been online.
It doesn't take much searching to see that she has been blogging at least since 2003 and founded JavaRanch, an online community for java programmers in 1998.
I gotta set the record straight on a few items:
eth0 said: "I get the feeling Ms Sierra hasn't been a long-term net user. And I would remind everyone that this is nothing but freedom of speech in action. As far as I can see there was no credible death threat - just some comments Ms Sierra found intimidating or disturbing."
Sorry eth0, Kathy's been on the net forever - she created JavaRanch.com back in maybe '97? If you didn't see a credible death threat then I can only assume you didn't actually read her post. Among other things she posted the following comment she recently received: "fuck off you boring slut... i hope someone slits your throat and cums down your gob". Do you live in a world where that's not a death threat? My reading of federal law is that it is.
Nick, you said: "But Chris Locke, despite appearances, is human too, and he has a reputation, which has been trashed, without much thought. Is that something you think is justified?"
Chris helped to create the two sites in question, and the two horrific graphics and comments that Kathy discussed were posts made by the site's creators - they were not reader comments. All Kathy said was that. We don't know who made those posts, Kathy never said that Chris did.
WendySharp: "When the free speech is directed in his direction, it becomes character assassination?"
You are my new hero! (Well, along with you Robert.)
- Bert
Even the two comments that Locke admits to making about Sierra had me scratching my head - why the venom? Come on, we're taking about IT here, not the fate of the free world. If you don't agree with Kathy, well, okay, but it's not important enough to invest even that many rude words in. And for them to create whole sites to trash tech folks? Talk about misdirected energy. I expect the 10 or 15 hate comments on my blog every day - I'm gay, so it's par for the course - but I can't imagine why people are so angry at Kathy Sierra.
"i hope someone slits your throat" ...
"beat this bitch with a bat" ... "the only thing Kathy has to offer me is that noose in her neck size" ...
You seriously think these comments are only the concern of "white male geeks who fear that they'll otherwise seem insensitive to women"? Murder by sickos like these is the number one cause of death for women, and you're shocked that people are posting "outrage and condolences"?
Yes, there's little proof that Locke was directly involved in the postings. That doesn't mean the issue isn't serious.
Actually, the number one cause of death for women is heart disease, followed by cancer and strokes. "Murder by sickos," or "homicide," as the CDC refers to it, doesn't even show up in the top ten.
And, yes, of course death threats are bad. I don't think there's anyone on either side of this issue that's debating that issue. I do think Denise Howell has a pretty interesting point about the intersections between what's legally actionable and what moral compasses exist to guide bloggers.
I think my comment is tangent to the larger issues, but I can't help, but wonder how much research you did into who Chris Locke is. I don't know him, still I find it easy to disagree to "Locke's own career is founded on his promotion of authentic communication." Have you seen the character blog Kat Herding that he contributes to?
Chris wouldn't do this. I've talked to him too many times, by phone, after my divorce and heard his feelings about women, and misogynism, too often to believe it. Hell, he's called me on my own posts - on my own blog.
Chris "has no defenders"?
Sure he does - me.
The argument for Locke's complicity should be pretty clear to anyone who has thought for half a second about social dynamics in a way that doesn't immediately presuppose that 90s usenet norms were handed down to Noah on the mount.
Locke, a leader and norm-setter in the community, was a constant spokesperson for pathetic, macho fetishization of pure assholishness. He went on to devote his name and time to two websites set up entirely for the purpose of pathetic, macho fetishization of pure assholishness. Anyone who acts surprised that the threatening comments might grow out of that is either stupid or lying.
Is Locke as responsible as the people who made the comments? Of course not - that's a ridiculous position, and I don't know of anyone who has taken it. But when you're instrumental in creating extremely vicious norms within a social space, you're partly responsible for the results.
Let me first say, I think Kathy has real complaint, but feel her extreme victim rhetoric, shifted focus from the idea that ANY abuse is wrong and should be denounced to a comparative suffering and what counts as real.
Knowing people who were really "never the same" after assaults, rapes and aggressive stalkers which hunted them online and off, I found her employment of that term off putting. It diminished their pain while at the same time inflated her own past validity.
Of course, since the controversy broke, trolls have spreading her SSN and address around the web as punishment, which sort of proves her point.
Yet my distaste for Kathy's melodramatic wording is surpassed by the whining over the results.
As a longtime observer the whole Encloypedia Dramatica subculture a thought comes to mind: Lulz is not a one way street, it's a sphere which turn on you, baby.
I've noticed those who champion the roughness of the internet as necessary to free thought when defending their own smack-talking and pranks often get as self-righteous and defensive as those they mock when things don't go their way.
When the receiving end of rough treatment finds ways retaliate effectively using the sane net as a tool, suddenly the web is full of mob rule and unfair.
If you "own your own words", you also own the consequences of your words - which means if you create and promote a potentially offensive site, you may end up owning the wrath, even if you didn't cause the offense.
Many have said say using the web to get attention means being prepared for negative attention. Even Kathy admits this. The point is this applies to Locke et. al. as well as Kathy.
If they really wanted a safe environment to say whatever they wanted with no censorship or retaliation, they could have made it members only. The concept of meankids was inspired by an accusation of bullying and invited provocative material on the WORLD WIDE WEB.
Chris Locke is, it appears, a fully grown adult - he knew this and maybe should have been a bit above it at his age.
Kathy understood the nature of the net as well and - intentionally or not - her response PWND meankids and unclebobism and maybe a bit of the rampant misogyny on the web.
If geek guys feel restricted in how aggressive they can be for fear of being called misogynist, tough cookies. Instead of blaming women, blame the aggressive misogynist assholes who created the tension with their attacks. The whole interactiveness, accountability and unnecessary roughness of the net makes no exceptions for the "authentically" unpleasant.
To quote one of the oldest computer dictums: garbage in, garbage out. Or an even older pre-net one: Karma's a bitch.
Andy by Noah I mean Moses.
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?