It’s hot, hot, hot, so I’m in the coolest room in the house putting together a world pool house. Continue reading “From the world pool: July 28, 2018”
Some days just feel like this. Continue reading “From the world pool: April 28, 2018”
Today I went to check out Gabriolan.ca, and found this:
I’ve shut down Gabriolan.ca.
It seems that this is necessary in order to maintain my privacy. I’m sad about that, but some people don’t accept or respect the fact that there are good reasons for wanting to be anonymous on the internet.
I’ve enjoyed the chance to share things with you over the last seven years. The articles, photos, and comments you contributed were a gift to me and to everybody who stopped by to read the site.
… Best wishes to all of you. To the kind and respectful readers: thank you for enriching my life.
I am beyond furious about this. This was a great site, I found so much of interest there; it was one of very few blogs I read regularly.
And it’s been shut down because of concerns for privacy. And for me this is a hot-button issue.
Here’s the thing: there are a lot of good reasons to be private on the internet, i.e. keeping your identity and/or personal information private. Here are two (of countless) recent examples of what happens to people who are not anonymous and who annoyed someone on the internet.
- This is what happened to Zoe Quinn: August Never Ends
- And this is what happened to Zoe Quinn’s boyfriend: Risky Business.
And this kind of harassment—let’s call it stalking, because that’s what much of it is—has been going on for MONTHS.
For some people it has been going on for years.
And yes, most of it might “just” be assholes behaving like assholes (and why is that okay anyway? why is it somehow okay to be an aggressive asshole if you are pointing your assholery at someone who is anonymous?). But the point is that the recipient DOESN’T KNOW what’s a creditable threat and what isn’t. (Does the name Elliot Rodger ring a bell?) Consider this: A redditor succinctly breaks down the fear behind “credible threats” with regards to safety precautions/leaving home. This is the reality of the experience of online harassment for many people, and not just people who are prominent and well known.
But here’s my main point: why the hell should someone else get to decide whether your concerns are realistic or not, and make the choice of whether you should be anonymous or not?
My opinion? You don’t get to choose for someone else.
Gabriolan is a private citizen, expressing their views on matters affecting their community and way of life. Private citizens get to remain private if they so wish, for any reason or none at all. No one gets to make the decision of how private we should be for me, for you, for Gabriolan, or for that matter anyone anywhere. They don’t get to decide for any of us what we wear to market, or what locks we do or don’t put on our doors (virtual or otherwise). They don’t get to decide what name I put on my driver’s license, for that matter, much less what name I hang on my website. If they are not comfortable with the names we’ve chosen to use within the spheres in which we move, their (honest and civil) options are limited to ‘sucking it up’ and ‘sucking it up harder’. (They could also grouse and whine, but that’s merely being petty and human, rather than grossly self-centred and reckless.)
“Outing” someone in any way—making public any information about them that they have chosen to keep private—is not “honesty.” It is solely an act of aggression. It is punishment. It is someone admitting they cannot counter another’s views or position using reasoned argument, and therefore they will silence them using whatever underhanded weapons they can bring to bear. It’s flipping the gameboard and setting fire to the pieces because you can’t stand the idea of others disagreeing with you.
There is nothing to stop anyone with engaging with ideas and opinions from an anonymous source. (If someone won’t allow you to do so using their personal platform, there’s nothing to stop you from creating your own platform and arguing from that.) Ideas and opinions require neither identity nor anonymity; they stand on their own. Insisting that people do not have the right to be anonymous is not an argument with the substance of their ideas; it is the opposite. It is in fact detached from the substance of the ideas, and a red herring. It is bullying.
And that claim I have seen so often, that anonymity is the refuge of cowards? Applying it to everyone, without knowledge of individual circumstances or context, is the height of privileged arrogance and entitlement. And given what’s in the news about online harassment these days, I think it would be very, very difficult to make that claim without being disingenuous in the extreme.
Happy Friday the 13th! (A short list this week, was preoccupied with work deadlines.)
Culture as ‘Ways of Life’ or a Mask of Racism? Culturalisation and the Decline of Universalist Views. (PDF) An interesting paper from the journal of the Australian Critical Race and Whiteness Studies Association that discusses how “culturalization” can be used on the left as well as the right to disguise, reinforce and depoliticize racist structures and discourse. (via @rcloenenruiz)
Audrey Watters: Men (Still) Explain Technology to Me: Gender and Education Technology. Transcript of a talk delivered to Leeds Beckett University. “The problem isn’t just that men explain technology to me. It isn’t just that a handful of men explain technology to the rest of us. It’s that this explanation tends to foreclose questions we might have about the shape of things.” (via @tressiemcphd)
Anita Sarkeesian: What I couldn’t say.
A redditor succinctly breaks down the fear behind “credible threats” with regards to safety precautions/leaving home. “So now you get to decide: do I panic? Or do I fucking panic?” (via @ Quinnae_Moon
Quote of the week
It’s the rule you make, not the rule you intended, that everyone will have to deal with in the future.
From the world pool this week, it’s all in the socio-political category:
Anita Sarkeesian hit the news again, this time because she cancelled a speaking gig at Utah State University. Did she cancel because someone threatened a “Montreal-style massacre” of her and people who attended? Nope. She cancelled because the University police refused to do a screening check for weapons; apparently (1) doing so is prohibited by Utah’s concealed carry laws and (2) they considered it unnecessary, given how often she receives death threats. (!!!) And as we all know, there’s no reason to think that someone who threatens people online or through email is likely to carry the threat out, is there?
Related: Brianna Wu is mad as hell. “They threatened the wrong woman this time. I am the Godzilla of bitches. I have a backbone of pure adamantium, and I’m sick of seeing them abuse my friends.”
And speaking of online harassment… Twitter can fix its harassment problem, but why mess with success?
The Weaponization of Emotion: Sara Wanenchak. A couple of months old now, but a good analysis.
I love this Zadie Smith quote. It explains so much.
No just-for-fun cuteness or coolness this week, I’m afraid. But I did find this inspiring:
Trans model Geena Rocero is gender proud. (Watch the TED talk video.)