On the sickness of our community

Posted Oct 11, 2014 5:41 UTC (Sat) by speedster1 (guest, #8143)
In reply to: On the sickness of our community by raven667
Parent article: On the sickness of our community

Blog shmog, Matthew Garrett is clearly an enemy of Free Speech! We don't need his kind working on the kernel or helping support LWN!

http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/32778.html?thread=1255434#cmt...

P.S. Randall Munroe also doesn't seem to understand the concept of Free Speech -- but luckily he keeps his hands off our kernel

http://xkcd.com/1357/

to post comments

On the sickness of our community

Posted Oct 12, 2014 3:15 UTC (Sun) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link] (20 responses)

Poe's Law strikes again.

On the sickness of our community

Posted Oct 12, 2014 5:12 UTC (Sun) by speedster1 (guest, #8143) [Link] (19 responses)

An interesting fact about Matthew's blog moderation policy is that it only targets posts rehashing the specific point that he *warned* people not to bother repeating; there were many seemingly serious posts along the same lines as my earlier comment, sprinkled with a liberal dose of personal insults and namecalling, and even the occasional on-topic-but-opposing viewpoint that did not get filtered.

Clearly, Matthew must be as inept at suppressing dissension as he is at working around obscure platform bugs ;)

On the sickness of our community

Posted Oct 16, 2014 14:02 UTC (Thu) by ksandstr (guest, #60862) [Link] (18 responses)

>that it only targets posts rehashing the specific point that he *warned* people not to bother repeating;

How would you know, given that the supposed rehashing has been removed and replaced with "fart fart fart"?

I should warn you at this point that credulity-- such as what you express above-- is what invites deception in itself.

On the sickness of our community

Posted Oct 16, 2014 16:13 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (17 responses)

> How would you know, given that the supposed rehashing has been removed and replaced with "fart fart fart"?

Because it's what I said I did, and there's no reason to suspect that I'm lying?

On the sickness of our community

Posted Oct 16, 2014 16:33 UTC (Thu) by ksandstr (guest, #60862) [Link] (16 responses)

> Because it's what I said I did, and there's no reason to suspect that I'm lying?

The reason to suspect that you're lying is that there's no practical need for you to speak the truth. That need is obviated by "fart fart fart fart"; to wit, you wouldn't be caught lying if you had. This puts you in a position to lie at your convenience, and so you will; much as authority figures in countries where e.g. the police are considered trusted a priori.

On the sickness of our community

Posted Oct 16, 2014 17:04 UTC (Thu) by karath (subscriber, #19025) [Link] (13 responses)

Do you realise that you have just publicly accused someone of lying? And said that he is lying because he can, with no other supporting evidence?

The sickness of our community indeed.

On the sickness of our community

Posted Oct 16, 2014 17:24 UTC (Thu) by ksandstr (guest, #60862) [Link] (2 responses)

Please point out where in the above comment I'm accusing someone of lying. As a further point of interest, why do you think that an used car salesman will tell you that you can trust him?

(In the spirit of turnaround, do you realise that you have just publicly called me a sickness?)

On the sickness of our community

Posted Oct 16, 2014 17:33 UTC (Thu) by karath (subscriber, #19025) [Link] (1 responses)

"This puts you in a position to lie at your convenience, and so you will; much as authority figures in countries where e.g. the police are considered trusted a priori."

Very well. Handbags at dawn.

Posted Oct 16, 2014 17:54 UTC (Thu) by ksandstr (guest, #60862) [Link]

I fully stand behind the letter of my comment regardless of your interpretation.

Furthermore if there is such a day when the veil of that blog's comment-chain is cracked wide open and my assertion disproven by all of the 322 comments in the ``actions have consequences'' post as they were submitted by their posters, I'll absolutely admit to having been mistaken. Until then, and whichever breach of decorum my viewpoint may be perceived to entail, good day to you.

On the sickness of our community

Posted Oct 16, 2014 22:20 UTC (Thu) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link] (9 responses)

If "lying" isn't correct, what (in your opinion) should we call the act of mass-deleting replies to a blog post and following up to each and every one with a multi-paragraph copy-paste reply claiming they all consisted of the string "fart fart fart" and were removed for "irrelevance"?

I have a few suggestions in mind, but LWN is hardly an appropriate place for that kind of language.

And as for no evidence, there's an open confession from the man himself above. Isn't that good enough for you?

On the sickness of our community

Posted Oct 16, 2014 23:09 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (8 responses)

If "lying" isn't correct, what (in your opinion) should we call the act of mass-deleting replies to a blog post and following up to each and every one with a multi-paragraph copy-paste reply claiming they all consisted of the string "fart fart fart" and were removed for "irrelevance"?

Keeping one's personal blog clear of misogynistic drivel?

(It's not as if Matthew hadn't announced beforehand what was going to happen. If people can't read they probably shouldn't comment, either.)

On the sickness of our community

Posted Oct 17, 2014 17:26 UTC (Fri) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link]

It's a bit hard to confirm that's the case when the only reference point available is the aftermath. I'll just have to take your word for it.

On the sickness of our community

Posted Oct 21, 2014 13:06 UTC (Tue) by nye (subscriber, #51576) [Link] (6 responses)

>Keeping one's personal blog clear of misogynistic drivel?

Moderating (including removing) posts is often useful, and sometimes necessary.

Replacing them all with "fart fart fart" is being an asshole; there's a difference.

On the sickness of our community

Posted Oct 21, 2014 13:09 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (5 responses)

You don't get it, he _removed_ the 'fart fart fart' posts.

On the sickness of our community

Posted Oct 21, 2014 13:23 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (3 responses)

I don't think the posts he was removing actually contained the string "fart fart fart", they contained BS and he replaced it with "fart fart fart" as a value judgement about the quality of the post, which is a bit taunting and provocative to the people who have been moderated.

On the sickness of our community

Posted Oct 21, 2014 13:25 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (2 responses)

I was actually reading the blog post in question when there was only one 'fart-fart-fart' comment. So I kinda doubt it.

On the sickness of our community

Posted Oct 21, 2014 17:46 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (1 responses)

There is this one comment which stands

http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/32778.html?thread=1206538#cmt...

but many like

http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/32778.html?thread=1314314#cmt...

> Original comment read:
> "Fart fart fart fart"
> and as such has been screened for irrelevance.

Is it your contention that each of these original comments _actually_ said fart, maybe that is true, I presumed that they said something bilious and nasty and mjg59 just replaced them with fart to keep the discussion from being derailed and to highlight the irrelevancy of the hateful comments. Which I think is his right, it's his site and his hosting.

On the sickness of our community

Posted Oct 21, 2014 18:02 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

Several of them weren't bilious or nasty, and there are several comments that *were* bilious or nasty that I left there. The ones that were removed simply contained arguments that were so fundamentally wrong and incompatible with observed facts that merely removing them would have been insufficient in demonstrating my disdain.

On the sickness of our community

Posted Oct 21, 2014 13:45 UTC (Tue) by nye (subscriber, #51576) [Link]

>You don't get it, he _removed_ the 'fart fart fart' posts.

No, that's not what happened.

On the sickness of our community

Posted Oct 16, 2014 17:35 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (1 responses)

Just so we're clear on this, you think weev is trustworthy and that I'm not?

The general topic of transparency

Posted Oct 16, 2014 17:43 UTC (Thu) by ksandstr (guest, #60862) [Link]

Weev is verifiable; you are not. Weev's argument can be researched; yours is down to faith. Weev's is backed by evidence; yours by "trustworthiness" i.e. games about reputation and credibility.

Trusted describes a position where betrayal is possible. You've put yourself in one by virtue of "fart fart fart", and the certitude of your deception follows from the practical consequences of comment moderation.