Inside the Business of Online Reputation Spin

The Guardian has a long, thought-provoking piece (it's an excerpt from an upcoming book) on the way that online PR works, when individuals or organizations pay online spin doctors to change the way they're perceived online. Embarrassing photos, ill-considered social media posts, even quips that have ended up geting the speaker into hot water, can all be crowded out, even if not actually expunged, by injecting lots of innocuous information, photos, and other bits of information. That crowding out seems to be the reputation managers' prime tactic. Besides a brush of his own with identity theft (or at least unwanted borrowing), the author spoke at length with both Adria Richards and "Hank"; both of whom ended up losing their jobs in the aftermath of what became known as Donglegate, after Richards tweeted about jokes that she overheard Hank and another developer share at PyCon 2013.

Comments

Feminism HURTS families

[Anonymous Coward]

and other living things

Re:Feminism HURTS families

[ArmoredDragon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't even post a counter argument, just link to a pointless YouTube video.

Feminism has destroyed the family unit. There's such a high rate of divorce, teenage pregnancies, adultery, and so on in the western world. In places with less feminized crap, like much of Asia, there is much less of this crap.

Sorry it's not PC, but men and women are built for different roles. But keep voting for liberals and lying to yourself that everyone is equal. Ignorance is bliss.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[drinkypoo]

Feminism has destroyed the family unit.

Really? It wasn't the men beating their wives, raping them and so on? The people, usually men, abusing their children or stepchildren? I mean, I despise the "everything is the men's fault" rhetoric enough to have arguments about why I don't want to be called a feminist, but seriously, you're being a loony here. What feminists are guilty of is not causing the failure of the system, but of a boringly typical overcorrection to attempt to solve real social problems, because most humans have a "with us or against us" attitude. Like Dennis Miller said way back before he went completely batshit crazy and started pandering to denialists, "...finally there is only one guy left and no doubt that crazy motherfucker will attack the mirror."

Feminism is an inherently exclusive "solution" to the problem of not enough cooperation, and thus will always miss the mark of solving the problem that it's trying to solve. But that doesn't mean it's not a stage of social progress. Society typically misses the mark, for instance carrying the royals to the guillotine but not scooping up the bankers as well. As long as the appeal to emotion continues to be what moves people, that's how the world is gong to work.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[Anonymous Coward]

The news always talks about men beating their wives, but in reality women do it just as much, but get away with it. When there a domestic dispute, the police always believe and help the women and arrest the man.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[geminidomino]

It wasn't the men beating their wives, raping them and so on?

That was never as socially acceptable in this country as the dogma would have you believe. Going back to the 17th century (before there even was a "this country"), the colonies were making laws against wife-beating. I can't find the link now, but there are images of newspaper announcements of men being publicly whipped for doing so.

The people, usually men, abusing their children or stepchildren?

Actually, according to "Child Maltreatment 2012" (US Dept. of Health and Human Services - PDF Warning), the numbers pretty strongly indicate that the opposite is true: among biological parents, mothers are about 2x as likely as fathers to be perpetrators of child abuse, and among non-parents, categories that are separated by gender go to females as well. "Partner of Parent (Male)" does beat "Partner of Parent (Female)", though, at 2.3% vs 0.3%, so if you're limiting the population to just children abused by stepfathers, what you said is not exactly false.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[Anonymous Coward]

Your attempt to use facts to subvert the feminist agenda has been reported to the authorities. Please remain where you are for your complimentary gender reassignment program.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[drinkypoo]

That was never as socially acceptable in this country as the dogma would have you believe.

As long as it's still going on, and still being gotten away with, it's more socially acceptable than you think it is.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[TapeCutter]

but in reality women do it just as much

Bullshit. Both the victims and perpetrators of random violence are overwhelmingly male. However, domestic violence is not random violence, victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly female. The sexes are NOT equal in physical strength, the average male has 1.5X the upper body strength of a similar sized female and twice the strength of grip in their hands, it's almost always the unarmed female who ends up in hospital when push turns to shove.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[geminidomino]

It's still going on in both directions. Domestic violence is instigated by both sexes at Similar Rates (PDF warning again. SAVE handout that contains citations). Enforcement, however, is not, thanks to the broken-by-design Deluth Model, sexually biased "primary aggressor policies", and social pressure against men reporting being hit.

Woman-on-Man and Girl-on-Boy violence, though, enjoys a great deal of public acceptance. Usually "played for laughs."

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[drinkypoo]

Woman-on-Man and Girl-on-Boy violence, though, enjoys a great deal of public acceptance. Usually "played for laughs."

Sure, I agree with that. But again, where does it come from? How do you compare it with the typically much more serious abuse perpetrated by males against females? Obviously, it's comparable, but you can't just consider numbers. And while I don't believe that abuse only exists when it's pervasive (I've had it up to my ears with that bullshit about how it's only sexism when it's men doing it) I also believe that it is fundamentally different.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[Anonymous Coward]

And per capita, murderers are overwhelmingly black.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[geminidomino]

HOW is it fundamentally different? What's the magic element that makes one "not as bad" as the other?

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[drinkypoo]

HOW is it fundamentally different? What's the magic element that makes one "not as bad" as the other?

The magic element that's missing from your understanding of what I'm saying is reading comprehension. I said that when the abuse is pervasive, it takes on a different character. Try calming your knee before reading, it may help.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[geminidomino]

My knee is not jerking, and I honestly expect better from you than that (normally I don't bother engaging on the internet anymore). I'm not misreading what you're saying, I'm inquiring about your reasoning.

You say that abuse being "pervasive" is the problem, but that you "can't look at just the numbers." How else are you measuring pervasiveness? The incidents occur at similar rates, and one of them *is* socially acceptable, but it's the opposite of your original implication.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[drinkypoo]

My knee is not jerking,

Then what prevents you from reading what I clearly wrote? Just refusing to do so?

You say that abuse being "pervasive" is the problem, but that you "can't look at just the numbers." How else are you measuring pervasiveness?

It's not only physical abuse, it's being treated as lesser. It's the "culture of abuse" that gets pooh-poohed all the time. Except, of course, it's true. It's about how women are systematically treated as less than men by most societies worldwide. And it's about how when a man assaults a woman, the results are usually more severe than vice-versa.

As I said, it's about classic overcorrection. People lash out. It's not rational.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[phantomfive]

It's not rational.

That's true, you looked at the numbers and either ignored them, or drew the opposite conclusion.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[geminidomino]

Then what prevents you from reading what I clearly wrote? Just refusing to do so?

The fact that you didn't write the relevant bit, so that I had to ask for more information.

It's not only physical abuse, it's being treated as lesser.

Since you've moved the goalposts from "physical abuse" to "systemically treated as lesser" without providing any examples of the latter, I'm going to limit the context of my response to the former.

In what sense? In the sense that they are unable to make decisions on whether or not to strike someone physically stronger than they are ("primary aggressor" policies), less capable of defending themselves and thus need stronger protection of the law and society (gender-biased "domestic violence" legislation, most DV shelters and social programs being women-only)? In the sense that they're unable to care for their children alone, despite being the ones with decision-making power on the subject?

All of these things show a certain gender-bias, that's true, and they're all the result of false observations like the ones you originally made in your post, and supported or even demanded by those claiming that they counter said "oppression."

And it's about how when a man assaults a woman, the results are usually more severe than vice-versa.

Widespread social response would disagree with you. A man who slaps around a woman is statistically much more likely to be punished in court, pilloried by the media, and basically served up to the metaphorical stake. A woman who permanently disfigures a man is fodder for a bunch of washed up old women on a TV talk show.

In a situation like that, it's really hard to take claims of women being valued "lesser" at face value.

It's about how women are systematically treated as less than men by most societies worldwide

When you aggregate the whole gamut of "most societies worldwide", you get a hell of a skewed picture. Propagating disinformation, myths, and outright lies in the Western world isn't going to do jack to help in those societies where women DO have legitimate complaints of oppression.

In the developed world, where all of these bogus statistics, pseudo-sociological screeds, and PC Thought Police are perpetually bounced around, though, is another matter. When measured on gender-lines, the "privileges" of males is a proper subset of that of females. Calling that "oppression" is a real stretch.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes, the only way to deal with a stubborn, intractable person who refuses to see reason is to just say "shut up, you stupid bitch".

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[Anonymous Coward]

Female initiation of partner violence is the leading reason for the woman becoming a victim of
subsequent injury. Dr. Sandra Stith has called it “a dramatically more important factor than
anything else.”

Wow. That site you got there is really something.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[geminidomino]

It makes sense, when you apply a moment of rational thought. Removing the genders from the equation will probably make that easier for most:

Starting a brawl with someone bigger and stronger than you means it's going to hurt you more when they hit you back. Doesn't mean you didn't start the fight, and should probably be considered when deciding whether or not it's a good idea in the first place (it usually isn't).

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[geminidomino]

However, domestic violence is not random violence, victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly female. The sexes are NOT equal in physical strength, the average male has 1.5X the upper body strength of a similar sized female and twice the strength of grip in their hands, it's almost always the unarmed female who ends up in hospital when push turns to shove.

That's using a very carefully crafted definition of "victim," and even if it wasn't, you're still wrong. Even removing cases of bi-directional violence, female instigators are at near-parity to male.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[geminidomino]

You're probably right. I'm just disappointed that I gave him/her too much credit.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes sense, when you apply a moment of myopic thought.

FTFY

> Starting a brawl with someone bigger and stronger than you means it's going to hurt you more when they hit you back.

Because when a woman slaps a man she should expect a knock-out punch in return. That's what it means to be in a relationship. Just like when your toddler kicks your shin, he should expect a kick to the face in return, That's what it means to be a parent.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[Anonymous Coward]

Because when a woman slaps a man she should expect a knock-out punch in return. That's what it means to be in a relationship. Just like when your toddler kicks your shin, he should expect a kick to the face in return, That's what it means to be a parent.

Wow, talk about myopic thought. So, being in a relationship means one partner slapping the other is acceptable. But only when the slapper is female, otherwise it's domestic violence.

Slapping initiates violence. The quoted observation does not say, as you myopically state, that the male partner's response is always violence. Just that statistically a female gets hurt far more often after she initiated the fight.

Moreover, since one can assume that a physical fight is likely to result in one if not both partners getting hurt, and if only one then it's more likely to be the female, one can infer that the likelihood of domestic violence being initiate by the female is significantly larger than the likelihood of it being initiated by the male (work it out if you like, it's simple math).

This says nothing about how widespread domestic violence is, so it's fodder for spin. However, as the GP said, replace genders with 'physically stronger/weaker' and you get

• physically stronger humans do not often initiate fights (bullies exist, but are rare)
• physically weaker humans who initiate fights get hurt

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[Anonymous Coward]

However, domestic violence is not random violence, victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly female. The sexes are NOT equal in physical strength, the average male has 1.5X the upper body strength of a similar sized female and twice the strength of grip in their hands, it's almost always the unarmed female who ends up in hospital when push turns to shove.

That's using a very carefully crafted definition of "victim," and even if it wasn't, you're still wrong. Even removing cases of bi-directional violence, female instigators are at near-parity to male.

Got your ass kicked by a woman did you? It shows!

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[AmiMoJo]

Woman-on-Man and Girl-on-Boy violence, though, enjoys a great deal of public acceptance. Usually "played for laughs."

That certainly is a problem, and needs to be dealt with. The problem is that it is impossible to have any kind of dialogue because even though both sides basically agree about this point (yes, feminists are against female on male violence as well) they are do far apart it's like ships passing in the night and screaming at each other.

Feminists think that sexism is an issue and should be called out. Men's Rights groups think that calling out sexism is trying to censor perfectly acceptable behaviour and is in itself sexist, and an example of women wanting special treatment. If the Men's Rights people really want to help deal with issues like this one they need to do what feminists did and start a dialogue that isn't dominated by such extreme rhetoric and reactionary outbursts. Call attention to the issue, but drop the "...and this is another example of femianzis cutting men's balls off" bit from the end and they will see results.

Ironically the most watched video on this issue on YouTube was posted by a feminist leaning group.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[geminidomino]

If the Men's Rights people really want to help deal with issues like this one they need to do what feminists did and start a dialogue that isn't dominated by such extreme rhetoric and reactionary outbursts.

I disagree. It *is* an example of women wanting special treatment, and it is them getting it. Feminism (as opposed to feminists, who can't seem to agree on a damn thing) doesn't want to solve this issue, and MRAs certainly aren't interested in being told condescendingly to "sit down, shut up, and do what feminism tells you," as you're doing. Whatever the solution to the incongruity may be, I have a hard time believing feminism has anything to contribute to it, since its own flawed premises created the problem in the first place.

I'm not even an MRA, just a guy who feels about "bullshit" the way you say feminists feel about "sexism."

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's actually not true at all. Perpetrators of non-reciprocal violence are more often female. On top of that, they're more likely to use weapons.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[ultranova]

A man who slaps around a woman is statistically much more likely to be punished in court, pilloried by the media, and basically served up to the metaphorical stake. A woman who permanently disfigures a man is fodder for a bunch of washed up old women on a TV talk show.

Just out of curiosity, what talk shows have so many women who disfigured a man and got away with it that you can make meaningful statistics about such appearances?

Also, while "slapping someone around" is not as serious as a fisthfight as far as medical consequences go, the implications are actually far nastier. It's not a fight between equals, it's some douchebag asserting their power - their ownership - over someone else. Because you don't slap someone who might punch back, precisely because it does nothing but anger the target, but only someone who you think is incapable of fighting back either physically or even legally. People engaging in such bullying absolutely should be made examples of, and deserve no one's sympathy when they are. Goddamn overgrown schoolyard bullies.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[geminidomino]

It's not a fight between equals, it's some douchebag asserting their power - their ownership - over someone else.

Other than the "ownership" hyperbole, you're right, regardless of the posterior plumbing of the douchebag.

Because you don't slap someone who might punch back, precisely because it does nothing but anger the target, but only someone who you think is incapable of fighting back either physically or even legally

Except the numbers show that, obviously, people do just that. And when a stronger target DOES hit back, the attacker takes more hurt than gives.

People engaging in such bullying absolutely should be made examples of, and deserve no one's sympathy when they are. Goddamn overgrown schoolyard bullies.

I used to agree with this just as vehemently as you seem to. When the bullies started coming up without a Y-chromosome, though, I'm sexist enough to content myself with discrediting them.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[drinkypoo]

Sometimes, the only way to deal with a stubborn, intractable person who refuses to see reason is to just say "shut up, you stupid bitch".

So, is that how you deal with women?

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you don't slap someone who might punch back, precisely because it does nothing but anger the target, but only someone who you think is incapable of fighting back either physically or even legally.

This is a good point, especially when viewing the posted statistics about women initiating domestic violence and ending up hurt. Seems likely that they expected to get away with inflicting violence without getting a violent response. Bullies indeed, but hopefully a very small minority.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes, the only way to deal with a stubborn, intractable person who refuses to see reason is to just say "shut up, you stupid bitch".

So, is that how you deal with women?

So, this is how see women - as 'stubborn, intractable persons who refuse to see reason'?

And please, stop trolling already.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, talk about myopic thought. So, being in a relationship means one partner slapping the other is acceptable.

No, it means that proportionality is a minimum requirement for interaction..

> Just that statistically a female gets hurt far more often after she initiated the fight.

That is not what it says AT ALL. But you keep on believing that the weaker person deserves what they get.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[ultranova]

Other than the "ownership" hyperbole, you're right, regardless of the posterior plumbing of the douchebag.

The whole point of slapping - or other low-intensity violence - is to show the victim's very body is perpetrator's possession, to do with as they please. Please explain how describing this as ownership is hyperbolical?

Except the numbers show that, obviously, people do just that. And when a stronger target DOES hit back, the attacker takes more hurt than gives.

Half of population are below median intelligence. Bullies are no exception.

I used to agree with this just as vehemently as you seem to. When the bullies started coming up without a Y-chromosome, though, I'm sexist enough to content myself with discrediting them.

I'm sorry to hear that. Let's hope you get better soon.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[kwbauer]

Nope, the expectation of proportionality is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Once violence is initiated, the original victim has the legal right (in all civilized countries) to defend oneself by stopping the threat violence. That always requires an escalation.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[Phil Urich]

Once violence is initiated, the original victim has the legal right (in all civilized countries) to defend oneself by stopping the threat violence. That always requires an escalation.

How does that always require an escalation? A person can threaten you with a knife while you're out around the BBQ and you can run inside and lock them out of the house, for example.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that it is impossible to have any kind of dialogue because even though both sides basically agree about this point (yes, feminists are against female on male violence as well)

Try bringing it up to a modern feminist, ever. You'll get lip service ('yes, we do care!'), but many will not abide talking about it beyond that capacity, and don't you dare even try to suggest that violence against men is more serious a problem than some trivial shit like manspreading.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you just compare a woman attacking a man to a toddler kicking someone's shin? Really?

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[geminidomino]

The whole point of slapping - or other low-intensity violence - is to show the victim's very body is perpetrator's possession, to do with as they please. Please explain how describing this as ownership is hyperbolical?

You actually need to show that "the whole point of [low-intensity violence] is to show the victim's body is the perpetrator's possession" first. Once you manage to establish that as something other than bullshit, then I'll take the onus from there. Good luck.

Re: Feminism HURTS families

[kwbauer]

Oh yes, we can always just run away and let the bully have everything they want. Or, we can stand up for ourselves which requires an escalation.

I'll rephrase... Winning always requires an escalation. Losing just requires submission to bullies.

Works for privacy too...

[retech]

This method works well to give privacy to an individual as well. If there's enough garbage information out there to effectively make it impossible to figure out truth from fact, then it's easy enough to hide in plain google site.

Re:Works for privacy too...

[Anonymous Coward]

'cos god knows searching arbitary amounts of text for specific words or phrases is a technology that humans haven't quite mastered yet, amirite?

dumbass

Re:Works for privacy too...

[Anonymous Coward]

After the Republicans destroyed altavista.com and left us with the CONservative ruled Google shit, keyword searching is dead. They killed it. They hate the Internet and hate us even more so they want us to die. That is why they rape so often. It isn't about sex. It is about their hate for us. In most of the Republican-ruled states, which is 47 of the states in this shithole country, ithe Republicans the Republicans have made it legal to rape wives. They can rape us, but it isn't against the law. That is why this country is now a shithole The Republicans have ruined it.

Re:Works for privacy too...

[greenwow]

The do constantly rape, and the media refuses to report it. The media is controlled by the Republicans with an iron fist.

Re:Works for privacy too...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hide in plain site? Idiotic spelling error, or extremely clever pun?

Re: Works for privacy too...

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans aren't the problem. It's the dems who are trying to push net neutrality to ruin the internet.

Re: Works for privacy too...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously?? The media is controlled by liberal Jews. One republican channel versus so many liberal ones.

Re: Works for privacy too...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Net Neutrality is a good thing. We need more government control of the Internet.

Re: Works for privacy too...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because corporate control would be just absolutely awesome!

Idiot.

Re: Works for privacy too...

[Dutch Gun]

No. Net Neutrality is a good thing. We need more government control of the Internet.

I'm sure the government is well aware of that necessity. The NSA has been carefully monitoring the situation for some time now.

Re: Works for privacy too...

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporate control is good if theres an open market. The problem with the current internet providers is its a government monopoly. Remove this and there will be competition and we wont need such government regulation because unpopular internet providers will go out of business?l.

Re: Works for privacy too...

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporate control is good if theres an open market. The problem with the current internet providers is its a government monopoly. Remove this and there will be competition and we wont need such government regulation because unpopular internet providers will go out of business?l.

And the State will Wither Away, too.

Yeah, right.

Real-world experience as opposed to Ayn-Rand fantasies are that in the absence of limitations that the biggest bastards will end up forming their own monopoly. No government help required.

Do they ( PR) have enough numbers

[invictusvoyd]

To influence a community run place like wikipedia ? Even though we have seen this happen it has not lasted for long .

Republicans publish nasty things about us...

[Anonymous Coward]

on the Itnernet. They hate us and want us to die. That is why they do this. You can't believe anything you read on the Internet about any right thinking person.

Re:Republicans publish nasty things about us...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are absolutely right - except the definition of right-thinking person is Republican, so the second half of your statement is nonsensical.

They like to shit on the chests of little girls

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look at how well their kind has buried that story. One of their kind shit on my daughter's chest, and the police wouldn't arrest him. Of course, I don't know why I expected the Republican's thugs in blue to do something about one of their own.

Re:They like to shit on the chests of little girls

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure it wasn't a comment about your daughter's chest >being shit?

Most men like larger, firm boobs (except for the ones like you).

adria richards

[ganjadude]

You know she is STILL out there spewing hate and racism? I checked her twitter page out after being reminded of who she was a few months back and shes still out there saying the same things that got her in trouble the first time.

Re:adria richards

[hermitdev]

Yeah, the interview doesn't exactly paint her in any better of a light than people already hold her in. In her own words she basically states she's racist and sexist with a possible religious bias:

“Not too bad,” she said. She thought more and shook her head decisively. “He’s a white male. I’m a black Jewish female. He was saying things that could be inferred as offensive to me, sitting in front of him.

(emphasis mine). The way that's phrased, to me, states that she was not offended, but chose to manufacture offense via the photo & tweets, and that resulted in real world damage to peoples lives. Not just to the two men, but their families, as well.

While I do think that a lot of the stuff that was done and said to her after this incident are despicable, it doesn't make her any less of a hurtful, spiteful, vindictive, hypocritical, hateful excuse of a human being. Additionally, her comment about Downs Syndrome is just...disturbing.

Re:adria richards

[Anonymous Coward]

You know she is STILL out there spewing hate and racism? I checked her twitter page out after being reminded of who she was a few months back and shes still out there saying the same things that got her in trouble the first time.

Women like this are easily just as bad as the men they purport to rage against. Getting a guy fired for a silly immature joke and not feeling any remorse speaks volumes. Claiming she felt afraid for her safety because of those jokes is ridiculous. She's obviously a sociopath. Happy to ruin lives so long as she gets attention. No amount of spin would make me want anything to do with her!

Re:adria richards

[Luckyo]

To be fair, these people make good money going that through very specific crowd on Patreon. It's their business model.

That is why they are called "professional victims".

Re:adria richards

[ganjadude]

While I do think that a lot of the stuff that was done and said to her after this incident are despicable, it doesn't make her any less of a hurtful, spiteful, vindictive, hypocritical, hateful excuse of a human being. Additionally, her comment about Downs Syndrome is just...disturbing.

agreed. people took it too far, with the death threats and whatnot. but it is really hard to feel bad for her when she makes comments like these https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:adria richards

[ganjadude]

i just got around to reading the article and wow. shes even worse than I recall

Ten months later, I was sitting opposite Adria Richards in a cafe at San Francisco airport. She seemed introverted and delicate, just the way Hank had come across over Google Hangout. She told me about the moment she overheard the comment about the big dongle. “Have you ever had an altercation at school and you could feel the hairs rise up on your back?” she asked me.

“You felt fear?” I asked.

“Danger,” she said. “Clearly my body was telling me, ‘You are unsafe.’”

Which was why, she said, even though she’d never before complained about sexual harassment, she “slowly stood up, rotated from my hips, and took three photos”. She tweeted one, “with a very brief summary of what they said. Then I sent another tweet describing my location. Right? And then the third tweet was the [conference’s] code of conduct.”

“You talked about danger,” I said. “What were you imagining might?”

“Have you ever heard that thing, men are afraid that women will laugh at them and women are afraid that men will kill them?” she replied. “So. Yeah.”

'He’s a white male,' Adria said. 'I’m a black Jewish female. He said things that could be inferred as offensive to me' I told Adria that people might consider that an overblown thing to say. She had, after all, been at a tech conference with 2,000 bystanders.

“Sure,” she replied. “And those people would probably be white and they would probably be male.”

This woman clearly has not learned a thing in the past 2 years. Which would explain why hank (the guy she got fired) got a job the next day, and she still has no job

Re:adria richards

[Pseudonym]

Can we be clear on one thing? Adria Richards did not get Hank Whoeveritis fired. The faceless Internet mob got them both fired.

This woman clearly has not learned a thing in the past 2 years.

I don't know if she correctly remembers what she felt in the moment. However, the incident will, for her, always be associated with actual rape and death threats. Why the hell wouldn't the overwhelming memory from the whole incident be "unsafe"?

What she has learned in the past two years is that the faceless Internet mob will do its best to make every stereotype (about how women and people with lots of melanin get treated in the tech industry) a reality. Whether or not her actions were justified in the moment is irrelevant; the subsequent shitstorm proved her right.

Re: adria richards

[Anonymous Coward]

Err.... You do know that what you're saying boils down to the assertion that anyone who falls on the wrong side of 4chan is automatically right, don't you? /considers invoking Godwin

Re:adria richards

[spire3661]

She also inferred that if he got up and attacked her, the mostly white male crowd would have done nothing to protect her. She still honestly believes what she FELT was a legitimate reason to ruin a person's life. She said directly that she knew exactly what she was doing when she took the picture, she goes on to say that because he had the temerity to complain about what she did, he is responsible for the trolls that go after her. She is a very sick person.

Re:adria richards

[Anonymous Coward]

> To be fair, these people make good money going that through very specific crowd on Patreon. It's their business model.
> That is why they are called "professional victims".

Wow. Way to flip the narrative.
Sarkessian funded her research on video games via kickstarter. That does not maker her a victim any more than it does any other academic earning a living doing research.

Meanwhile professional victimizers earn ad revenue on youtube and run crowdfunding for their gamergate vendetta videos on patreon.

Re:adria richards

[AmiMoJo]

You have cherry picked one small quote from the article in order to misrepresent her position. You then make various unfounded assumptions based on that quote, basically doing the same thing that you accuse her of.

In context she was saying that the speaker should have been aware that he might cause offence to the person in front of him. In that situation a reasonable person would have realized that what they were saying could offend the listener. I'm sure someone will start complaining about free speech and how there is no right not to be offended, but she isn't saying otherwise. She is just saying that people who are not douchbags have some awareness of these issues, and people who make racist or sexist comments to people's faces are bad people.

In other words, she is making exactly the same argument that you are. Either you failed to comprehend or you are trying the now standard tactic of accusing the accuser of the same thing or daring to complain.

Re:adria richards

[AmiMoJo]

I didn't watch more than a few seconds of the video because I'm at work, but do you really think a video posted by anonymous is likely to show her comments in context? Maybe she does think that way, but don't you think you should find a more reliable source before making up your mind?

I note that the GP didn't like to the article they quoted either. If I were not so generous I'd assume that was to prevent people getting the complete context in which it was said. For the benefit of the discussion, here is a link to the full article: http://www.theguardian.com/tec...

Re:adria richards

[Anonymous Coward]

What she has learned in the past two years is that the faceless Internet mob will do its best to make every stereotype (about how women and people with lots of melanin get treated in the tech industry) a reality. Whether or not her actions were justified in the moment is irrelevant; the subsequent shitstorm proved her right.

Holy unsafe generalization, batman. So she's, in her words, black, female and Jewish (I don't think the last one is relevant, unless she parades it, I for one don't have 'that one is Jewish' people reading skills). Also, what she's not saying, a drama queen, and she picked two people having a private conversation to show her righteousness. Now, out of those factors, you conclude that the 'black, female' attributes are the cause of the shitstorm?

I'm going to say Statistical Inference should be a very hard requirement on elementary school curricula. Or maybe Bill Nye could start discussing some elementary notions of Bayesian reasoning, for the past-elementary-school crowd. Because lacking the very basics of those leads to nonsensical posts such as yours.

Re:adria richards

[Anonymous Coward]

There's the narrative and reality.

The reality is that Anita and her ilk on patreon are indeed professional victims and use their victimized status to gain money.

The narrative is that they are constantly attacked.

The reality is that they purposefully instigate this behavior and likely false flag their own attacks to raise their own profile.

Re:adria richards

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy shit, you're actually defending someone who was feigning offense because they overheard a private conversation with one of the most innocuous, if mildly juvenile, jokes ever?

You and the rest of the PC police are what is wrong with this world.

Re:adria richards

[Anonymous Coward]

She listened in on a private conversation, Then took offense at something not directed at her.

And went batshit insane!..

She's the Problem, no one else.

If you are too thick to understand that, then that's your problem.

A self made victim is just a fucking nutter asking for trouble!.

Re:adria richards

[AmiMoJo]

You are implying that her fear was unjustified, but the reaction seen in the days after the event suggest was it was fully justified. It turns out that there are a lot of violent asshats out there who are willing to threaten rape and injury. Who knows if they will carry them out, but no-one should be required to find out before starting to worry.

If you don't want to be associated with the people who do that sort of thing don't act like them. Stick the conference rules, which are there for the precise reason that this sort of stuff does cause problems. It's not hard to do, it's not repressing your freedom of speech.

Re: adria richards

[Pseudonym]

I think I'm saying that 4chan is (or should I say "was") exceedingly easy to troll into a stereotypical over-reaction, especially by accident.

Re:adria richards

[Pseudonym]

Now, out of those factors, you conclude that the 'black, female' attributes are the cause of the shitstorm?

I'm saying that if a white dude (whether Jew or Gentile) had done the same thing, the shitstorm wouldn't have happened.

There are guys call out brogrammer culture all the time. Those stories don't make Slashdot as often, because it it bleeds, it leads.

Re:adria richards

[Anonymous Coward]

The GP probably didn't link to the article they quoted because it's linked within the original post. FFS.

Re:adria richards

[emj]

she picked two people having a private conversation

Part of why you have code of conducts is that nothing is private at a conference, I can hear what you are saying two rows in front of you.

Re:adria richards

[emj]

She's the Problem, no one else.

Anonymous people on the internet is the problem, what Hank and Adria did was not important.

Re:adria richards

[Anonymous Coward]

First, your assertion that what happened to her 'proves' a 'reality' about 'how women and people with lots of melanin get treated in the tech industry' is a bogus generalization, you have no supporting evidence, statistically meaningful or not.

I'm saying that if a white dude (whether Jew or Gentile) had done the same thing, the shitstorm wouldn't have happened.

Again, unsupported assertions. Do you have examples of white males posting similarly stupid comments (mind you, she didn't understand what they were talking about and didn't care; if it sounds vaguely sex-related, it's sexist) about a discussion between two females, regardless of skin color? If you do, then we can look at the reaction and see if you have a point or not.

So she heard something, figured it's a sex-related joke, deemed it sexist, got outraged, snapped a pic and posted a snarky comment on twitter. The 'faceless internet mob' got moving, but aside from the few loonies with threats[*] the mob also pointed out that she herself had made cruder sexual tweets[**] - and tweets are readable by more young girls than the one young girl developer that was at that conference (but was apparently nowhere close enough to hear the thing). That level of hypocrisy is ugly and I hope it gets pointed out and ridiculed mercilessly regardless of gender, skin color, or other irrelevant personal attributes of the hypocrite.

[*] sadly, freedom of expression also extends to loonies. I for one would rather have the freedom, even if it requires developing a thicker skin and occasionally ridiculing loonies, than to have a 'regulated' means of expression. Too easily such regulation encroaches on legitimate expression that just happens to have an ... 'undesirable' point of view.

[**] which raises the interesting question, did she think the guys were making sexual innuendo because they were, or because her mind was trained to think in terms of sexual innuendo? If all you have is a hammer ...

Re:adria richards

[ganjadude]

I posted that because it showed her literal twitter posts. there is nothing misleading in that video. her side of the story can be found as well, and was given in the interview in the main article

Re: adria richards

[ganjadude]

it was clearly an over reaction, no question about that, The way I see it though, is fighting fire with fire. (in this case, not in all cases)

Re:adria richards

[ganjadude]

I disagree. I do think this same thing would have happened if it were anyone else

Re:adria richards

[ganjadude]

then complain to the event organizers like an adult, dont troll twitter and complain when you get trolled back

Re:adria richards

[ganjadude]

You are implying that her fear was unjustified, but the reaction seen in the days after the event suggest was it was fully justified.

Im not sure this is even logical. Because event B caused fear, , then fear was justified prior and during to event A, which was simple overhearing someone elses conversation that had nothing to do with the person claiming "fear"

yeah, I am fearful everytime i walk in public because others are talking to each other....

Re:adria richards

[hermitdev]

I quoted directly from the article of the interview. Sorry I did not indicate that, just sort of assumed it would be conveyed.

Re:adria richards

[hermitdev]

So she heard something, figured it's a sex-related joke, deemed it sexist, got outraged, snapped a pic and posted a snarky comment on twitter.

Yes, it snowballed, but someone had to get that snowball rolling down the hill to begin with, and that was someone was Adria Richards.

If you read the interview in the article, she claims to have empathy towards "Hank", but her past and present actions reek of her being a sociopath. Even her own remarks insinuate that she wasn't offended, but she made a shit-storm because they could appear to be offensive to her. In her mind, and she states this in the interview, that because she is a black Jewish woman, and he is a white male, that she basically decided he needed to made an example of and that they got what was coming to them, because they don't understand where she comes from. She took racist and sexist actions by assuming things about these two because of parts of a private conversation she eavesdropped on because they are white and male, and she is black and female. She made no attempt to even privately or discretely address her perceived transgression, instead immediately publicly shamed them with a he-said/she-said allegation. I'd wager if she knew any personally identifying info when she snapped the photo & tweeted it, she'd have included that, as well. She has no remorse, and considering how public and detailed this whole incident has been and her (re)actions along the way, I don't see it as a surprise she's still unemployed. I don't see very many companies wanting to take on that legal time bomb. I'm sure there are companies where she'd be welcome (probably certain media/political outlets targeting certain niche demographics), but after this, I think she'll be hard-pressed to find a job in "normal" corporate environment.

Re:adria richards

[hermitdev]

I picked a singular, complete, quote from her, directly, that appears to be very telling of her mindset. I'm not assuming anything, I'm exercising literacy and understanding words of the English language. "could have offended" is not the same as "offended". I didn't try and reconstitute what I thought I heard someone behind me said at conference after I heard the word "dongle". Walk down the street or mingle among any large crowd of people. You'll likely, in very short order, hear a lot of things taken out of context may be offensive. Even if you heard the sentence "I want to give her my dongle", so what? You don't, without context, know who "her" is, what the dongle is, or why the dongle should be given to her. Yeah, you can make anything sexual. I want to her in the . Done. In today's society, we jump to the worst conclusions, publicly shame and convict in the media, nevermind whether what we perceive has any actual bearing on reality.

Re:adria richards

[Anonymous Coward]

She tried to throw a hatemob at someone, and got pissy when it backfired. I'm not going to have pity for a bomber if their explosives go off in their own hands instead of a crowded subway.

Re:adria richards

[Anonymous Coward]

Jay Allen

You mean the asshole who doxxed Felicia Day? An anonymous person doxxed her, and then this crackpot helpfully posted her street address shortly after, since people were claiming the dox was her talent agency. Think about that; even if you're too thick to see the coincidence, think about the motivation for that action. Does that sound like fighting against harassment, or pushing a narrative?

Re:adria richards

[AmiMoJo]

She assumed that most of the people there were fine, until some of them started acting like the ones who are abusive.

Re:adria richards

[Anonymous Coward]

She assumed that most of the people there were fine,

Her actions does not demonstrate this. Most != all. If she assumed most people were fine, she would have recognized that doesn't mean all people were fine, and wouldn't have made a big deal when she saw some people acting outside the assumed norm.

Car analogy time: I assume most people are fine drivers. I don't make a fuss if/when I encounter the exception to the rule.

Feminist analogy time: I assume most feminists are fine people. I don't make a fuss if/when I find that one clip of a femnazi that MRAs post on youtube.

Further, I would say that the assumed norm should be that a private joke between friends is just a private joke between friends, and it is abnormal to assume there are any deeper meanings than that.

until some of them started acting like the ones who are abusive.

"Like the ones who are abusive?" Who are those? The people who sent death threats? The people who beat their wives/gfs? The people who doxx?

No, those two guys are nothing like "the ones who are abusive". The two guy are like the people who hold private conversations between themselves.

The Guardian

[Iamthecheese]

It should be well worth reading: The Guardian is a foremost expert on spinning narrative.

Re:The Guardian

[zapadnik]

Well said. The Guardian is a massive source of disinformation and 'lies by omission'. I'm surprised they haven't renamed themselves 'Pravda' by now.

Re: The Guardian

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they came close enough. They named themselves "The Guardian". The obvious implication is that they are the guardians of the truth. "Pravda" is the Russian word for "truth".

Re:The Guardian

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. They're riding the goodwill of the Snowden revelations. If it weren't for those people would see them for what they are: just another tabloid like The Sun or The Daily Mail, tailoring their misinformation-clickbait to a different target audience.

Let's revisit the SONY BMG ROOTKIT for a moment

[Anonymous Coward]

and read/listen to a quote from Thomas Hesse:

"Most people don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?" - Thomas Hesse, President, Global digital business, Sony BMG

http://www.f-secure.com/weblog...

http://www.f-secure.com/weblog...

Now tell me gov/corp give a shit about us.

Doesn't matter.

[fyngyrz]

Wikipedia carries a great deal of bad and misleading information, as well as attacks and cover-ups. The editing (by which I mean arbitrary, supervision-free, largely random and often outright wrong top-down meddling with content) is nothing short of terrible. What keeps Wikipedia going is the users. What keeps setting it back is the meddling from above. Nothing has ever managed to keep misinformation out of it -- in either direction. That said, Wikipedia has long since mutated from its optimum form -- actually open -- into a pseudo-intellectual grandstand for its operators, replete with locked pages carrying their opinions to the masses.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[invictusvoyd]

what is the solution ? any suggestions ? I really like wikipedia and can't see it being "manupilated"

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

All true, but all overstated. Wikipedia is still objectively more accurate than traditional encyclopedias so the problem is academic rather than real.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[TapeCutter]

If WP's facts don't line up with your political preconceptions, try Conservapedia

Re:Doesn't matter.

[circletimessquare]

and yet it's superior to any alternative you might suggest, because any traditional top down organization is obviously far more biased and with an agenda

we're human beings. we're all biased. if you want your media to be free of bias, you will never read anything ever again

having said that, a nonprofit group of random individuals is about as bias free as you will ever get

there is a big difference between obviously biased and attempting to smear, and trying as hard as possible to being unbiased and a smattering of bias making it through nonetheless, simply because we are humans

in short, get your head out of your ass. you have no fucking clue how to make wikipedia better. i can't think of a formula to make it better. it is as good as we are going to get. that you can still find mess on it is simply a chance for you to reflect on the fact that a residual bias is always there, no matter how much you scrub, and you can never do better than that

Re:Doesn't matter.

[HornWumpus]

Don't trust wikipedia for any controversial subjects. As always seek lots of different information and make up your own mind.

Use wikipedia for the footnotes. Ignore the article.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[Mr. Freeman]

No, it's not. That study you mentioned only compared a handful of super-scientific articles about which there is no controversy, only a single correct interpretation of the facts, and consists of entirely objective material. When you compare Wikipedia with other encyclopedias with regard to social science, history, or basically anything that isn't a list of math proofs, you find that Wikipedia is far worse off.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[bickerdyke]

we're human beings. we're all biased. if you want your media to be free of bias, you will never read anything ever again

That would be indeed more of a solution than a problem.

But in reality, people who want their media to be free of bias rather tend to consider media, that shares their own bias as bias free.

Re:Doesn't matter.

[circletimessquare]

people who want their media to be free of bias rather tend to consider media, that shares their own bias as bias free.

that's restating the problem in terms of immaturity

"only media which conforms to my prejudices is 'bias free'" is a statement of ignorance

"everything has bias, some of it residual and unintentional, some of it purposeful and by design" is a statement of maturity and education

and then you choose the media where the bias is residual and unintentional. or even better, you choose many media sources, from different countries, even including those with bias, and see the truth through the spectrum of interpretations

you can't tell the difference between obvious propaganda and a news organization which tries hard to be impartial?

Re:Doesn't matter.

[bickerdyke]

you can't tell the difference between obvious propaganda and a news organization which tries hard to be impartial?

Of course I can do that. That's easy. The problem starts where you have to tell the difference between non-obvious propaganda and sloppy journalism due to budget reasons.

Yes, your course of action (reading and comparing multiple sources) would help, but boils down to do your own research and become your own expert, just to recognize bad newspaper articles.

And if that wouldn't be hard enough, you would have to be self-reflecting enough to recognize your own bias. Which is harder than you think, because to yourself, bias appears as knowledge. Usually of the "Everyone knows that..." or "Someone who I accept as expert once told me that..." or "It's common knowledge that.." varieties.

And it takes a really scientific mindest to accept that what you know may be completly wrong. (Our brain is wired to work with inaccurate information which is cool on its own, but the opposite of scientific)

Re:Doesn't matter.

[circletimessquare]

well said, i agree with everything, except

And it takes a really scientific mindest to accept that what you know may be completly wrong.

no, it's a character issue, not a knowledge issue

it's called humility

the dumbest moron in the world, who has an open mind and is willing to learn, is a better person than the scientific genius who is smugly certain in his knowledge and sneers off all challenges

ignorance isn't really the problem in this world

we're all ignorant, about something

the problem is *prideful* ignorance

the idea that "i know all i need to know and don't need to consider new evidence" is perhaps the greatest evil at work in the world

racist/sexist/ist/ist/etc.

[turkeydance]

EveryDamnBody is an "ist" somehow and in someway. i hate Duke and their coach and the basketball team. but that's just me.

Interview has wrecked work of reputation.com

[whoever57]

A google search of Lindsey Stone shows the images that she wanted to suppress, and lots of stories about her experience with her bad reputation.

It looks like anything done by reputation.com has been washed away by the more recent stories about her.

Re:Interview has wrecked work of reputation.com

[nicoleb_x]

Let's not give her another 15 minutes...

Re:Interview has wrecked work of reputation.com

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

Well at least the "incident" has a better context unless you're the sort to do a pure image search? Now the internet knows she's just another plain jane who did something stupid.

Re:Interview has wrecked work of reputation.com

[Slashdot Parent]

A google search of Lindsey Stone shows the images that she wanted to suppress,

Was it the middle finger pic from the Tomb of the Unknowns?

You just never know what will rile up the Internet Mob these days.

Sexism, Too

[Kunedog]

And no one should forget that she was also caught making at least one dick joke that same week:
http://media.tumblr.com/ed5aea...

I personally don't consider any of the jokes sexist, but they absolutely make her a hypocrite.

Re:Sexism, Too

[AmiMoJo]

You can't tell the difference between making a tame joke on Twitter and a run-on joke at a professional conference that is specifically against the conference code of conduct and also happens to be at a talk about helping young people and especially young girls into coding?

There is a time and a place for dick jokes. A PyCon talk is neither.

Re:Sexism, Too

[Anonymous Coward]

A private comment to your friend during a presentation by someone else is completely harmless.

Still can't believe how SJWs will defend hypocrisy to the death.

Re:Sexism, Too

[emj]

A private comment to your friend

Common power tactic, I'm sure they thought it was really funny and wanted everyone to hear.

You can help by not giving her any attention

[Anonymous Coward]

Adria Richards

Defending Yourself with Trolls!

[Anonymous Coward]

Making believable bad information go away is hard. You could fix your problems by doing the reputation.com approach of posting lots of credible good information (which can help some), or you could drown it out in non-credible bad stuff. You don't want the real *chan crowd mad at you, but enough posts from known 7chan trolls about your mother being a hamster and your father smelling like elderberries and photoshopped pictures of you doing evil things with hamsters and elderberries can make it hard to find the time you actually said something stupid in public, especially if you angered the actual conspiracy of elderberry fans.

Boosting Reputaion

[Anonymous Coward]

To boost your reputation make as many Yipppppeeeee!!!! posts as you can. Yipppppeeee posts show that you are a funny guy.

Black-Ops Reputation Management

[Anonymous Coward]

Scrubbed
        By Graeme Wood
        Published Jun 16, 2013

I watched online as a college classmate went from disgrace to redemption in months. That’s when I found myself deep in the world of black-ops reputation management.
...

captcha: investor

Credible people, products and services

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.nagaiah.com/

the reputation management didn't work in the case

[unami]

or was reversed by the guardian article - 23 out of the 26 first google-image searches now show me that hillarious/offending picture. in the case of adria richards - i think it's quite ironic that her getting hank fired monumentally backfired. they both lost a lot because of her overreacting, but she clearly got it worse. which seems quite fair to me.

also works the other way

[Anonymous Coward]

companies exist and are hired to do the opposite. Or both.

"Mao brigades" have been around for almost a decade. Local Bay Area companies advertise the "cleaning" service, but if you've ever been needing a job and called a few "tech" positions advertising "work from home", chances are you've contacted one of many services that are hired to simulate public opinion on products, political policies, and candidates, either promoting or smearing them depending on what they're hired to do.