Vigilanteville
October 10, 2014 12:51 PM Subscribe
"Revenge is never pretty, but when done meticulously, intelligently, and psychotically, it sure is a thing of beauty." Al Jazeera tells the story of James McGibney, founder of BullyVille and CheaterVille.
I just opened it up and saw the flag. Of course he's a Marine. Great post!
posted by corb at 1:17 PM on October 10, 2014
posted by corb at 1:17 PM on October 10, 2014
This is really conflicting stuff. His heart appears to be in the right place, but if I understand it correctly, he's providing a couple of platforms that awful people could use to do truly awful things. Am I missing something?
posted by jbickers at 1:21 PM on October 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by jbickers at 1:21 PM on October 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
Something about this just doesn't sit well with me. I mean, I'm not try to defend cheaters and bullies obviously (though I think permanently and publicly shaming someone over an interpersonal but not criminal problem like cheating is out of all proportion), but what happens when the *Ville websites get it wrong? We all know everything on the internet is practically permanent, what's the avenue for recompense when McGibney screws up?
posted by axiom at 1:30 PM on October 10, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by axiom at 1:30 PM on October 10, 2014 [7 favorites]
Pretty much everyone in this story sounds kind of terrible, but this made me laugh: Trahan left running so scared he filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau.
posted by rtha at 1:37 PM on October 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by rtha at 1:37 PM on October 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
Yeah, bullies suck and all, but this (the BullyVille website) seems to be lacking due process from the description in the article. There has to be a better way forward.
posted by The Vice Admiral of the Narrow Seas at 1:39 PM on October 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by The Vice Admiral of the Narrow Seas at 1:39 PM on October 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
I wonder if we're going to have to come up with some kind of new legal doctrine around this .... "Incent to libel/slander" or something.
posted by Diablevert at 1:46 PM on October 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Diablevert at 1:46 PM on October 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
You know, one of the things Gamergate accomplished was to ensure I have absolutely zero support for anyone who goes online to publicly slag their ex.
posted by Mitrovarr at 1:48 PM on October 10, 2014 [34 favorites]
posted by Mitrovarr at 1:48 PM on October 10, 2014 [34 favorites]
The Kate Haters gang is creepy, but not all that surprising.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 1:54 PM on October 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 1:54 PM on October 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
SeriouslY: His heart's in the right place?
Look, anybody who can say something like "Revenge ... when done meticulously, intelligently, and psychotically, it sure is a thing of beauty" does not have his heart in the right place.
This guy's a menace, and based on the description of his behavior in the article, I'm thinking he gets off on the sense of danger.
And can we can it with the hero-worship for marines? (If it helps, he was an IT geek in the marine corp for a single hitch a long time ago.)
posted by lodurr at 1:54 PM on October 10, 2014 [10 favorites]
Look, anybody who can say something like "Revenge ... when done meticulously, intelligently, and psychotically, it sure is a thing of beauty" does not have his heart in the right place.
This guy's a menace, and based on the description of his behavior in the article, I'm thinking he gets off on the sense of danger.
And can we can it with the hero-worship for marines? (If it helps, he was an IT geek in the marine corp for a single hitch a long time ago.)
posted by lodurr at 1:54 PM on October 10, 2014 [10 favorites]
This is kind of gross.
No, it's completely gross.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:56 PM on October 10, 2014 [11 favorites]
No, it's completely gross.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:56 PM on October 10, 2014 [11 favorites]
as for the whole 'cheaterville' thing: why in the name of any of the thousands of gods I don't believe in would anybody take a jilted partner's word for whether their ex was cheating on them? Especially when the consequences are as draconian as they are for 'cheaterville' victims.
posted by lodurr at 1:56 PM on October 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by lodurr at 1:56 PM on October 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
This seems like the sort of thing that could be avoided entirely if social networks and internet providers actually give a shit about nipping harassment in the bud when it happens on their services. All a user should have to do is click a button that automatically documents the harassing post or email (maybe even generating a quick screenshot just in case the harasser deletes the evidence), and it gets forwarded to the proper internal authority for review, who can then block or ban as needed. The harassers are silenced, and nobody has to get their hands dirty.
I used to believe in myth of righteous vengeance, but I just can't anymore.
posted by Strange Interlude at 1:57 PM on October 10, 2014 [7 favorites]
I used to believe in myth of righteous vengeance, but I just can't anymore.
posted by Strange Interlude at 1:57 PM on October 10, 2014 [7 favorites]
In an unjust society, where the prisons are filled with minorities and drug users and psychopaths are the powers that be, one must expect the arise of vigilantes. But who are the freedom fighters and who are the terrorists? In a lawless world, how is one ever to know?
posted by Obscure Reference at 2:14 PM on October 10, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by Obscure Reference at 2:14 PM on October 10, 2014 [5 favorites]
This is a pretty interesting link — the lack of accountability for the Is Anyone Up folks led to some pretty toxic shit, and I'm not going to shed any tears for them, but the narrative of someone becoming the thing that they hate is pretty well established, and it looks like McGibney may be heading down that road.
posted by klangklangston at 2:17 PM on October 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by klangklangston at 2:17 PM on October 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
This is such a horrible grey moral area. Yes, it is like any tool. It can be(and likely is) used to "out" a lot of people who are philandering on their partners. And the impetus of a person who has been jilted is tinged significantly with a desire to lash out and hurt the person who hurt them. Though, in a "free market", where the laws about these kinds of things are very difficult to manage, let alone enforce (what LEO wants to have to figure out who did what in a s/he said / s/he said argument, especially with something that is for the most part considered a civil/domestic issue).
Though, at least, if you are aware of such a tool/website, you might be a little more careful and discerning in who you associate with, and especially who you date. Of course, it is just another piece of baggage to add to the already complicated realm of dealing with other people.
But here's where, at least from the way the story is framed by the journalist, it gets interesting:
The story from most of people who hate McGibney, is the same kind of shit you hear from EVERY "good person" who gets caught doing something they fucking know was wrong, and they thought they'd never get caught. It's the same shit that stupid thieves say when they're busted by the hidden camera the thought wasn't constantly watching. It's the crap that idiot politicians say when they get busted in a sting, catching them smoking crack. It's the same shit that the pastor says when they are busted for sleeping with the secretary behind his wife's back.
"I am a good person."
I am so tired of this fucking lie. No, you are not a good person. No one is. To be a good person, you have to actively be aware of everything you do and know that EVERYTHING counts.
Maybe the more the ubiquitous surveillance of civil society increases, and the more bored people on the internet start posting videos pulled from CCTV camera's of everyone doing stupid shit ALL THE FUCKING TIME, we might start to realize that everyone is BAD at some point. Everyone has a bad day. Everyone gets angry. Everyone says things that are hurtful and mean. Everyone vents, and everyone curses, and everyone thinks other people are stupid.
Even the "white knight" army of Anon's that McGibney are not Good People. And McGibney knows that. He is okay with that. The paranoia and the shit he has to deal with are part and parcel with everything he does. There is no "but I'm doing a good thing" card to play here to save him, or his family, from the shit that is other "people being stupid."
The part I hate is the doxx'ing. I cannot stand that this is the great "be all, end all" weapon on choice. I know it is a useful tool, especially on the defensive (doxx'ing your harassers is very useful, especially when trying to find out if their target is in the same geographic area). But this shit with people stepping it up from simply gathering the information for later use in criminal proceedings (which was the old route, especially when trying to prosecute stalkers), to actually showing up at someone's door with a gun or a knife is utterly fucking dumb.
Of course, when the legal prosecution avenue fails, I have also known of many instances where vigilante actions happened because there seemed to be no other recourse for the targets of stalkers. And this was in the fucking 90's. Today it seems like the first step is from doxx to doorstep, with no one even bothering to try and involve the law. Civil society ain't so civil no more.
Sadly, this just reminds me of this story I read about a comedian who quit comedy:
At first, when he was young, comedy was a way of thumbing his nose at the people in charge.
Then, as he grew older, it was a way to point out how absurd the people in charge were.
Finally, it became very apparent that the "people in charge" weren't really in charge of anything.
No one was.
And then it wasn't very funny anymore.
(source amnesia strikes again, I really wish I had a cite for this}
posted by daq at 2:25 PM on October 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
Though, at least, if you are aware of such a tool/website, you might be a little more careful and discerning in who you associate with, and especially who you date. Of course, it is just another piece of baggage to add to the already complicated realm of dealing with other people.
But here's where, at least from the way the story is framed by the journalist, it gets interesting:
The story from most of people who hate McGibney, is the same kind of shit you hear from EVERY "good person" who gets caught doing something they fucking know was wrong, and they thought they'd never get caught. It's the same shit that stupid thieves say when they're busted by the hidden camera the thought wasn't constantly watching. It's the crap that idiot politicians say when they get busted in a sting, catching them smoking crack. It's the same shit that the pastor says when they are busted for sleeping with the secretary behind his wife's back.
"I am a good person."
I am so tired of this fucking lie. No, you are not a good person. No one is. To be a good person, you have to actively be aware of everything you do and know that EVERYTHING counts.
Maybe the more the ubiquitous surveillance of civil society increases, and the more bored people on the internet start posting videos pulled from CCTV camera's of everyone doing stupid shit ALL THE FUCKING TIME, we might start to realize that everyone is BAD at some point. Everyone has a bad day. Everyone gets angry. Everyone says things that are hurtful and mean. Everyone vents, and everyone curses, and everyone thinks other people are stupid.
Even the "white knight" army of Anon's that McGibney are not Good People. And McGibney knows that. He is okay with that. The paranoia and the shit he has to deal with are part and parcel with everything he does. There is no "but I'm doing a good thing" card to play here to save him, or his family, from the shit that is other "people being stupid."
The part I hate is the doxx'ing. I cannot stand that this is the great "be all, end all" weapon on choice. I know it is a useful tool, especially on the defensive (doxx'ing your harassers is very useful, especially when trying to find out if their target is in the same geographic area). But this shit with people stepping it up from simply gathering the information for later use in criminal proceedings (which was the old route, especially when trying to prosecute stalkers), to actually showing up at someone's door with a gun or a knife is utterly fucking dumb.
Of course, when the legal prosecution avenue fails, I have also known of many instances where vigilante actions happened because there seemed to be no other recourse for the targets of stalkers. And this was in the fucking 90's. Today it seems like the first step is from doxx to doorstep, with no one even bothering to try and involve the law. Civil society ain't so civil no more.
Sadly, this just reminds me of this story I read about a comedian who quit comedy:
At first, when he was young, comedy was a way of thumbing his nose at the people in charge.
Then, as he grew older, it was a way to point out how absurd the people in charge were.
Finally, it became very apparent that the "people in charge" weren't really in charge of anything.
No one was.
And then it wasn't very funny anymore.
(source amnesia strikes again, I really wish I had a cite for this}
posted by daq at 2:25 PM on October 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
McGibney soon realized how effective nerd power could be. On the way back from serving overseas in Japan, a Marine buddy found out his wife was cheating on him. McGibney thought, What if there was a way to out cheaters online, so everyone could be warned and aware?I'm reminded of the gigs of jilted-ex pornography out there, the worst of which gets spammed as a single jpg collage which includes the woman's contact info.
But yes, if only there were a way.
posted by postcommunism at 2:29 PM on October 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
This jumped out at me:
Because claiming that Anonymous is your own personal army is an invitation to have Anonymous target you.
posted by el io at 2:41 PM on October 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
Though McGibney balked at some of Anonymous’s outlaw tactics — “That’s not brains over bullies, that's illegal shit,” he says — having his own personal army felt empowering.I wonder if the writer of the article knows that "we are not your personal army" is practically Anonymous's motto (or one of them).
Because claiming that Anonymous is your own personal army is an invitation to have Anonymous target you.
posted by el io at 2:41 PM on October 10, 2014 [4 favorites]
In a lawless world...
As John Locke tells us, in a lawless world vigilante justice would be appropriate, as being the alternative to no justice at all. People who have no protection from the laws have a right to protect themselves.
Now the next thing Locke would say is that this is why we need laws. Vigilantism produces horrible, unjust outcomes on a regular basis, as seen in GamerGate. We don't need vigilante websites, we need laws and twitter policies that punish harassment.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 2:42 PM on October 10, 2014 [10 favorites]
As John Locke tells us, in a lawless world vigilante justice would be appropriate, as being the alternative to no justice at all. People who have no protection from the laws have a right to protect themselves.
Now the next thing Locke would say is that this is why we need laws. Vigilantism produces horrible, unjust outcomes on a regular basis, as seen in GamerGate. We don't need vigilante websites, we need laws and twitter policies that punish harassment.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 2:42 PM on October 10, 2014 [10 favorites]
Because claiming that Anonymous is your own personal army is practically an invitation to have Anonymous target you.
The problem with referring to Anonymous at all is that it is not, not even in the slightest way possible, a unified organization.
There are just as many factions of Anonymous as there are people on the planet, and the allegiance of any one member may change from one day to the next (or one minute to the next) that it is impossible to quantify in any static state.
The beauty and the curse of it, I guess.
Also, I do not doubt for a second that the harassment campaigns against McGibney are ALSO Anonymous in source, just a different subset of a different faction.
posted by daq at 2:44 PM on October 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
The problem with referring to Anonymous at all is that it is not, not even in the slightest way possible, a unified organization.
There are just as many factions of Anonymous as there are people on the planet, and the allegiance of any one member may change from one day to the next (or one minute to the next) that it is impossible to quantify in any static state.
The beauty and the curse of it, I guess.
Also, I do not doubt for a second that the harassment campaigns against McGibney are ALSO Anonymous in source, just a different subset of a different faction.
posted by daq at 2:44 PM on October 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
Not so long ago I came out of a relationship that ended badly. My ex decided to deal with her pain by slandering me on online social networks. It was hard, because I knew that the right thing to do was not to engage, while I was also afraid that some people among our mutual friends might think she was telling the truth. I resolved to stay quiet, and tell my side of the story if asked. A couple of people asked.
It's funny because there have been some notable stories lately, about how important it is to listen to a woman's story of her experiences, and to believe her. And I sympathize. At the same time I have been pushed out of a community by someone making false accusations about me. And even deeper, the person doing this is so enamored with her own identity as a victim that she seemingly can't imagine that her actions could be hurting someone else.
These sorts of revenge plots are evil. Harassing someone based on anonymous hearsay is evil.
posted by idiopath at 3:06 PM on October 10, 2014 [5 favorites]
It's funny because there have been some notable stories lately, about how important it is to listen to a woman's story of her experiences, and to believe her. And I sympathize. At the same time I have been pushed out of a community by someone making false accusations about me. And even deeper, the person doing this is so enamored with her own identity as a victim that she seemingly can't imagine that her actions could be hurting someone else.
These sorts of revenge plots are evil. Harassing someone based on anonymous hearsay is evil.
posted by idiopath at 3:06 PM on October 10, 2014 [5 favorites]
This seems like the sort of thing that could be avoided entirely if social networks and internet providers actually give a shit about nipping harassment in the bud when it happens on their services. All a user should have to do is click a button that automatically documents the harassing post or email (maybe even generating a quick screenshot just in case the harasser deletes the evidence), and it gets forwarded to the proper internal authority for review, who can then block or ban as needed. The harassers are silenced, and nobody has to get their hands dirty.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I was reading another article about online harassment recently ---- I seem always to have been --- that mentioned the trouble many stalking harassment victims had in getting facebook to take down some seriously vile shit. It was marked as "humor," you see, and Facebook seemingly cheaps out on moderation and either can't be arsed to look into thing enough to make the obvious call or employs a squad of doughy geek Pontious Pilots. There is no economic incentive for them to give a shit, and the legal prod that could make them has been deliberately blunted, as this article points out. Internet harassment is a huge problem, but restoring web service providers' legal liability for the stuff people say using their service would turn the Internet into Club Penguin, or the People's Republic of China. All of American jurisprudence tends to be heavily tilted in favor of allowing free speech, and on the whole I think that's a good thing. But it leave this obvious hole, or flaw, when it comes to harassment. That's why I ghink you'd have to come up with a whole new set of rules for this stuff --- something like Cheaterville is basically begging its users to make shit up about people they want to hurt, and right now there's no way to nail them for that.
posted by Diablevert at 3:09 PM on October 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I was reading another article about online harassment recently ---- I seem always to have been --- that mentioned the trouble many stalking harassment victims had in getting facebook to take down some seriously vile shit. It was marked as "humor," you see, and Facebook seemingly cheaps out on moderation and either can't be arsed to look into thing enough to make the obvious call or employs a squad of doughy geek Pontious Pilots. There is no economic incentive for them to give a shit, and the legal prod that could make them has been deliberately blunted, as this article points out. Internet harassment is a huge problem, but restoring web service providers' legal liability for the stuff people say using their service would turn the Internet into Club Penguin, or the People's Republic of China. All of American jurisprudence tends to be heavily tilted in favor of allowing free speech, and on the whole I think that's a good thing. But it leave this obvious hole, or flaw, when it comes to harassment. That's why I ghink you'd have to come up with a whole new set of rules for this stuff --- something like Cheaterville is basically begging its users to make shit up about people they want to hurt, and right now there's no way to nail them for that.
posted by Diablevert at 3:09 PM on October 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
having his own personal army felt empowering. “It was so impressive to watch Anonymous go after someone,” he recallsEveryone grudgingly loves (the popular imagination version of) anon sometimes, because sometimes they really do act as the little justice-fairies of the internet (or can at least tell you a really compelling story that that's what they're doing). And imagining them that way fills in a real and often frightening gap in life with the internet: there are a whole lot of people who deserve to be able to at least hit back but who have no legal or even social recourse and for whom the idea of internet vigilantism props open a door to some kind of third option.
(Ironically, Anon as a method of interaction online in no small part helped create that gap, but hey)
But there is nothing intrinsically just there; a huge part of what makes it compelling is that awed sense of power at a distance, of actions without visible actors that somehow project consequences into the real world. The stories about what people deserve (and yeah, the Kate Haters? Sounds like they were asking for it) get cobbled together alongside or after the fact.
posted by postcommunism at 3:17 PM on October 10, 2014
Strange Interlude: This seems like the sort of thing that could be avoided entirely if social networks and internet providers actually give a shit about nipping harassment in the bud when it happens on their services. All a user should have to do is click a button that automatically documents the harassing post or email (maybe even generating a quick screenshot just in case the harasser deletes the evidence), and it gets forwarded to the proper internal authority for review, who can then block or ban as needed. The harassers are silenced, and nobody has to get their hands dirty.
This is a good idea, but no company will touch this with a 10 foot pole. Because once they admit it isn't an intractable problem, the liability begins.
No one wants to get sued for not doing enough to prevent the suicide of someones daughter or whatever. Not that it couldn't happen now, but if there was official moderation it would be a much stronger case of them fucking up than it is now with the bullshit of "oh we just can't possibly do that".
Social media companies are trying to set themselves up as sort of common carriers in both the public and regulators minds. I wish there was a way to stop them from getting away with it, but i can't think of a way of actually forcing them to implement anything like what you described.
Additionally, no one wants to pay the moderation staff because they think they shouldn't have to.
You also have to just know that there would be a bigger than gamergate contingent of asshole saddlesore brobros who are absolutely furious that their inalienable right to call women the c word online has been taken away.
I really wish some kind of regulations could be put in place, sort of like the EMV liability shift with card processing that were to the effect of "if you run a for profit public site or service intended to be used by people in this country, that allows people to contribute stuff and fits this loose definition of a social media thing, and it has more than X users, you have to meet this basic standard of moderation like XYZ or any harassment is your liability"* and then let harassed people sue the sites if they didn't do anything about the harassment.
*i know this is probably stupid as fuck and not possible
posted by emptythought at 3:53 PM on October 10, 2014 [6 favorites]
This is a good idea, but no company will touch this with a 10 foot pole. Because once they admit it isn't an intractable problem, the liability begins.
No one wants to get sued for not doing enough to prevent the suicide of someones daughter or whatever. Not that it couldn't happen now, but if there was official moderation it would be a much stronger case of them fucking up than it is now with the bullshit of "oh we just can't possibly do that".
Social media companies are trying to set themselves up as sort of common carriers in both the public and regulators minds. I wish there was a way to stop them from getting away with it, but i can't think of a way of actually forcing them to implement anything like what you described.
Additionally, no one wants to pay the moderation staff because they think they shouldn't have to.
You also have to just know that there would be a bigger than gamergate contingent of asshole saddlesore brobros who are absolutely furious that their inalienable right to call women the c word online has been taken away.
I really wish some kind of regulations could be put in place, sort of like the EMV liability shift with card processing that were to the effect of "if you run a for profit public site or service intended to be used by people in this country, that allows people to contribute stuff and fits this loose definition of a social media thing, and it has more than X users, you have to meet this basic standard of moderation like XYZ or any harassment is your liability"* and then let harassed people sue the sites if they didn't do anything about the harassment.
*i know this is probably stupid as fuck and not possible
posted by emptythought at 3:53 PM on October 10, 2014 [6 favorites]
“Go after my advertisers, go after my family, go after my friends, I'm not going away,” he says. “I’m going to fight you until I'm dead.” Then he checks over his shoulder, and dips into his nachos again.If I was his wife, I'd use this quote in my divorce proceedings against him. He's publicly stated that he cares more about his net-battles than he does the physical safety of his family.
Fuck this asshole.
posted by el io at 5:30 PM on October 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
Guy sounds like a real piece of work. Never heard of those websites before today, never planning on visiting them in the future.
posted by oceanjesse at 5:48 PM on October 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by oceanjesse at 5:48 PM on October 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
This is such a horrible grey moral area.
It's really not. Prior to the internet, if you cheated on your partner, 9/10 times you'd get called an asshole to their friends. It fades. You get a chance to learn from your mistake and/or move on from it. Now? It's permanent. And there's nothing, not a single thing, guaranteeing that there's any truth to allegations whatsoever.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:56 PM on October 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
It's really not. Prior to the internet, if you cheated on your partner, 9/10 times you'd get called an asshole to their friends. It fades. You get a chance to learn from your mistake and/or move on from it. Now? It's permanent. And there's nothing, not a single thing, guaranteeing that there's any truth to allegations whatsoever.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:56 PM on October 10, 2014 [3 favorites]
fffm: furthermore, it used to be that your friends would call bullshit on you if you were full of shit. the internet seems to take you at your word now.
posted by el io at 6:47 PM on October 10, 2014
posted by el io at 6:47 PM on October 10, 2014
He's publicly stated that he cares more about his net-battles than he does the physical safety of his family.
I dunno. I think at this point even if he completely killed the site and quit the Internet, the people threatening him would never stop. They don't stop, ever (see the Kathy Sierra thread the other day), at this point.
I seriously don't know what to make of this guy, for the record.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:30 PM on October 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
I dunno. I think at this point even if he completely killed the site and quit the Internet, the people threatening him would never stop. They don't stop, ever (see the Kathy Sierra thread the other day), at this point.
I seriously don't know what to make of this guy, for the record.
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:30 PM on October 10, 2014 [2 favorites]
the internet seems to take you at your word now.
hahahhaahahahahahaha oh if only
posted by divabat at 11:45 PM on October 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
hahahhaahahahahahaha oh if only
posted by divabat at 11:45 PM on October 10, 2014 [1 favorite]
Even the "white knight" army of Anon's that McGibney are not Good People. And McGibney knows that. He is okay with that.
And that's why he's so evil.
This is not gray at all. It's wrong.
posted by lodurr at 4:32 AM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
And that's why he's so evil.
This is not gray at all. It's wrong.
posted by lodurr at 4:32 AM on October 12, 2014 [1 favorite]
Prior to the internet, if you cheated on your partner, 9/10 times you'd get called an asshole to their friends. It fades.
This is a bug, not a feature.
If cheaters knew that the instant they acted, they would be forever branded a cheater and couldn't go on dates without that person having the ability to know they were a cheater, dating would be massively improved. Why the fuck should cheaters be rewarded with a memory hole?
posted by corb at 6:48 AM on October 13, 2014
This is a bug, not a feature.
If cheaters knew that the instant they acted, they would be forever branded a cheater and couldn't go on dates without that person having the ability to know they were a cheater, dating would be massively improved. Why the fuck should cheaters be rewarded with a memory hole?
posted by corb at 6:48 AM on October 13, 2014
Because everybody makes mistakes, and nobody deserves to have that following them. Employers routinely Google job applicants these days, for example.
Also because a lot of people who make mistakes learn from them and move on.
I've been cheated on many, many times, and in no way would I want any of my exes to have that albatross hanging around their neck forever.
tl;dr there's a reason we have law, it's to prevent vigilantism. Because vigilantism and revenge do absolutely nothing beneficial to society.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:21 AM on October 13, 2014
Also because a lot of people who make mistakes learn from them and move on.
I've been cheated on many, many times, and in no way would I want any of my exes to have that albatross hanging around their neck forever.
tl;dr there's a reason we have law, it's to prevent vigilantism. Because vigilantism and revenge do absolutely nothing beneficial to society.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 7:21 AM on October 13, 2014
> Why the fuck should cheaters be rewarded with a memory hole?
man this is not about cheating this is about "haha, I will hurt you with the internet!"
posted by postcommunism at 8:59 AM on October 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
man this is not about cheating this is about "haha, I will hurt you with the internet!"
posted by postcommunism at 8:59 AM on October 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
Exactly. And even if one accepts that cheaters should be shamed for the rest of their lives, have future relationship and job prospects potentially ruined because of one mistake, there is nothing whatsoever regarding these sites that requires any proof at all.
What I'm saying is, how about I get a picture of you and post that corb is a cheater? (For the record I would never do any such thing.) Whether it's true or not, that will now live forever on the internet, and you have no recourse.
That's why this is gross and wrong. There is no way to justify this shit.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:43 AM on October 13, 2014
What I'm saying is, how about I get a picture of you and post that corb is a cheater? (For the record I would never do any such thing.) Whether it's true or not, that will now live forever on the internet, and you have no recourse.
That's why this is gross and wrong. There is no way to justify this shit.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:43 AM on October 13, 2014
But see, the part that I don't get is the "you have no recourse" stuff. Of course you have recourse. If someone is going to date you and sees that you may have been a cheater, you can just provide the contact information for your exes and let them call over, or if one ex is particularly awful, you can just say, "Yes, they thought I was cheating. It was really unfortunate that their jealousy led them to such levels."
This isn't about how unfair it is to the person who cheated. It's about providing more information so that people can make informed choices about who they want to date and what level of risk they want to accept.
posted by corb at 10:09 AM on October 13, 2014
This isn't about how unfair it is to the person who cheated. It's about providing more information so that people can make informed choices about who they want to date and what level of risk they want to accept.
posted by corb at 10:09 AM on October 13, 2014
It's about providing more information so that people can make informed choices about who they want to date and
What about people who haven't cheated and yet end up on these sites?
What about people who have cheated, once, and never will again?
Nobody is going to see a potential lover's name here and think "Gee whiz, I really should call their exes." That potential lover isn't ever going to become more than potential.
But see, the part that I don't get is
...that people have the right to move on from their mistakes. If they have even made them. Which this site doesn't guarantee.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:07 PM on October 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
What about people who haven't cheated and yet end up on these sites?
What about people who have cheated, once, and never will again?
Nobody is going to see a potential lover's name here and think "Gee whiz, I really should call their exes." That potential lover isn't ever going to become more than potential.
But see, the part that I don't get is
...that people have the right to move on from their mistakes. If they have even made them. Which this site doesn't guarantee.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:07 PM on October 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
Why should people have a "right" not to have anyone else know that they were a cheater? Why should anyone have a "Right" to have a potential lover become an actual lover?
posted by corb at 12:13 PM on October 13, 2014
posted by corb at 12:13 PM on October 13, 2014
It's about providing more information so that people can make informed choices about who they want to date and what level of risk they want to accept.
More "information" of utterly useless provenance, which then puts the onus on the accused cheater to provide references to refute a lie to someone they might be going on a first date with? Seriously, this is your proposed solution? Because it's ridiculous.
(Also, have you got a statute of limitations you'd be willing to accept? Like, if someone cheated when they were 16 and now they're 30, is that okay? Is one incident one too many, forever? Etc.)
posted by rtha at 12:18 PM on October 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
More "information" of utterly useless provenance, which then puts the onus on the accused cheater to provide references to refute a lie to someone they might be going on a first date with? Seriously, this is your proposed solution? Because it's ridiculous.
(Also, have you got a statute of limitations you'd be willing to accept? Like, if someone cheated when they were 16 and now they're 30, is that okay? Is one incident one too many, forever? Etc.)
posted by rtha at 12:18 PM on October 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
Why should random assholes have the right to destroy your life if they feel like it? You're doing your usual missing-the-point-on-purpose thing, and it's grating.
These websites have real-world consequences. They are bullying by another name. How would you feel, as I asked, if your name and picture were put up there? How do you think, as I asked, potential employers will view it when Googling your name? How do you think future partners will act? Why should private citizens have their information, whether true or not, splashed all over the internet at the whim of someone with a grudge? Why should someone who slipped up once--and never will again--have that albatross hanging around their neck for the rest of their lives?
This kind of harassment causes suicide, and you're not seeing why it's a bad thing?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:20 PM on October 13, 2014
These websites have real-world consequences. They are bullying by another name. How would you feel, as I asked, if your name and picture were put up there? How do you think, as I asked, potential employers will view it when Googling your name? How do you think future partners will act? Why should private citizens have their information, whether true or not, splashed all over the internet at the whim of someone with a grudge? Why should someone who slipped up once--and never will again--have that albatross hanging around their neck for the rest of their lives?
This kind of harassment causes suicide, and you're not seeing why it's a bad thing?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:20 PM on October 13, 2014
I already answered you. Yes, I think that people should have the right to put up their own experiences with someone on a website. This is no different than any other review website, except for dates. If it's true, then I see no problem whatsoever with it being published. If any of my exes wants to make a website filled with true stuff that I did in the relationship that they thought sucked, I will buy them the damn domain name and wish them luck.
No, I don't understand why it's a bad thing for someone who cheated to have that publicly known for the rest of their lives. There are no guarantees they will never do it again other than the cheater's word. And it's not like you can just slip and have your genitals fall into someone. Cheating is a deliberate act and cheaters deserve to be shamed. I find your "What if it was just once?" really icky as it places the focus of our sympathy on the person that has wronged and endangered the life of another person, rather than where it belongs, on the victim.
posted by corb at 12:25 PM on October 13, 2014
No, I don't understand why it's a bad thing for someone who cheated to have that publicly known for the rest of their lives. There are no guarantees they will never do it again other than the cheater's word. And it's not like you can just slip and have your genitals fall into someone. Cheating is a deliberate act and cheaters deserve to be shamed. I find your "What if it was just once?" really icky as it places the focus of our sympathy on the person that has wronged and endangered the life of another person, rather than where it belongs, on the victim.
posted by corb at 12:25 PM on October 13, 2014
If it's true, then I see no problem whatsoever with it being published.
That is a big fucking "if," and you sure are willing to give anonymous vigilantes an awful lot of benefit of the doubt. And did you not just argue in a different thread that bullying people to do the right thing is still bullying? So bullying someone to be honest about having cheated in the past is still bullying, right? And therefore not a good thing?
posted by rtha at 12:28 PM on October 13, 2014 [4 favorites]
That is a big fucking "if," and you sure are willing to give anonymous vigilantes an awful lot of benefit of the doubt. And did you not just argue in a different thread that bullying people to do the right thing is still bullying? So bullying someone to be honest about having cheated in the past is still bullying, right? And therefore not a good thing?
posted by rtha at 12:28 PM on October 13, 2014 [4 favorites]
No, I don't understand why it's a bad thing for someone who cheated to have that publicly known for the rest of their lives.
You... what? Really? I have shown exactly why it's a bad thing: Employers. Potential lovers. Children, once they're old enough to use the internet.
If it's true, then I see no problem whatsoever with it being published.
There is no evidence at all that anything posted on these sites is true.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:29 PM on October 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
You... what? Really? I have shown exactly why it's a bad thing: Employers. Potential lovers. Children, once they're old enough to use the internet.
If it's true, then I see no problem whatsoever with it being published.
There is no evidence at all that anything posted on these sites is true.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:29 PM on October 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
Why should people have a "right" not to have anyone else know that they were a cheater? Why should anyone have a "Right" to have a potential lover become an actual lover?
Are you really incapable of seeing how someone would lie on a site like this? This isn't some false rape accusations fantasy land type of thing where people whining about it is 10000x the actual problem. People lie about their exes CONSTANTLY. Are you not familiar with the "oh yea my ex is a crazy bitch" thing men constantly do, or how often the idea someone is a cheater is used as a weapon.
The old system isn't broken. If someone is actually a cheater, it catches up with them pretty quickly unless they move to a different city every couple months(and even then, with social media, it likely would).
This will primarily be a tool for harassment. People reading this when they meet someone will be just as likely as people calling exes.
And yea I mean I might be "biased" as someone whose had social media-fueled rumors and garbage follow me around for years when it should have died out long ago, because it's so easy now for bitter assholes or just assholes to keep that train rolling. We shouldn't be making it easier. I have friends who have had it much worse, too.
posted by emptythought at 12:31 PM on October 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
Are you really incapable of seeing how someone would lie on a site like this? This isn't some false rape accusations fantasy land type of thing where people whining about it is 10000x the actual problem. People lie about their exes CONSTANTLY. Are you not familiar with the "oh yea my ex is a crazy bitch" thing men constantly do, or how often the idea someone is a cheater is used as a weapon.
The old system isn't broken. If someone is actually a cheater, it catches up with them pretty quickly unless they move to a different city every couple months(and even then, with social media, it likely would).
This will primarily be a tool for harassment. People reading this when they meet someone will be just as likely as people calling exes.
And yea I mean I might be "biased" as someone whose had social media-fueled rumors and garbage follow me around for years when it should have died out long ago, because it's so easy now for bitter assholes or just assholes to keep that train rolling. We shouldn't be making it easier. I have friends who have had it much worse, too.
posted by emptythought at 12:31 PM on October 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
Let's say that some gamergate asshole decides to put up the names of any women games devs or journalists he doesn't like on a site like this. That would never happen, right? Anyway, the journo or dev could just post signed affidavits from her previous partners about how she never cheated, and that would take care of the malicious accusations.
posted by rtha at 12:48 PM on October 13, 2014
posted by rtha at 12:48 PM on October 13, 2014
I mean, sure, rtha, I get that. But I think the majority of the "I totally never cheated, and if I did, she deserved it/I have learned my lesson" crowd are men, taking advantage of vulnerable women. And if we can't say anything about it publicly, those people prosper. They prosper and find new victims because of our silences. It's actually similar to the dudes that are kind of rapey. There are some new Facebook tools that let you anonymously report a rape by someone in your friendgroup, and then if you have the app downloaded, you can see who to stay away from. And all the things people are saying about why the cheater database is a bad idea could well be applied to that incredibly useful and important application.
posted by corb at 1:01 PM on October 13, 2014
posted by corb at 1:01 PM on October 13, 2014
Rape is significantly more serious, and significantly less likely to generate false accusations.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:09 PM on October 13, 2014
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:09 PM on October 13, 2014
Can you tell me why you think women would be likely to make up false accusations of cheating? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just - trying to hear any non-gross explanation.
posted by corb at 1:13 PM on October 13, 2014
posted by corb at 1:13 PM on October 13, 2014
The same reason men do: jilted lover, revenge, holding a grudge. It's happened to me, it's happened to friends, it happens all the time.
None of which matters at all, because these sites are wrong from the get go. They are a fundamental invasion of privacy.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:22 PM on October 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
None of which matters at all, because these sites are wrong from the get go. They are a fundamental invasion of privacy.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:22 PM on October 13, 2014 [1 favorite]
But I think the majority of the "I totally never cheated, and if I did, she deserved it/I have learned my lesson" crowd are men, taking advantage of vulnerable women.
Talk about goalpost-shifting. Wow.
And if we can't say anything about it publicly, those people prosper.
Never said this, never implied it, and I don't think anyone else here has either. There is a huge difference between not being able to say something publicly - a thing people did long before the Internet! - and advocating for a vigilante site like this one.
posted by rtha at 1:30 PM on October 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
Talk about goalpost-shifting. Wow.
And if we can't say anything about it publicly, those people prosper.
Never said this, never implied it, and I don't think anyone else here has either. There is a huge difference between not being able to say something publicly - a thing people did long before the Internet! - and advocating for a vigilante site like this one.
posted by rtha at 1:30 PM on October 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
Realistically, how are you supposed to warn each other in a community too large for people to all know each other?
posted by corb at 1:32 PM on October 13, 2014
posted by corb at 1:32 PM on October 13, 2014
You do it the old-fashioned way: by gossiping in social circles, which tend to overlap, and which also have important features built in that sites like this lack. Features like: I know the person making the accusation, I have a context for them, I have more information by which to make a better decision. I really don't get why you think the anonymous words of strangers of dubious relationship to the accused is something you can take as trustworthy. That is very strange to me.
posted by rtha at 1:37 PM on October 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by rtha at 1:37 PM on October 13, 2014 [2 favorites]
Also, realistically, you are never going to have perfect information about people you don't know well, in a community that may be fractured or not very community-like, and you are better served by remembering this and acting accordingly than by putting your faith in vigilantes whose identities you don't know and motives likewise.
posted by rtha at 1:40 PM on October 13, 2014
posted by rtha at 1:40 PM on October 13, 2014
Realistically, how are you supposed to warn each other in a community too large for people to all know each other?
But that's the thing. What reasonable definition of 'community' means 'everyone with internet access'? If I have a boyfriend named Dave (NB: I have never had a boyfriend named Dave) who cheats on me, 'warning' someone in Kathmandu is pretty unlikely to be useful to anyone at all, unless he moves there.
And then there he is, with a scarlet letter next to his name every time anyone Googles him. Let's say he wants to be a teacher, for example. Think any school boards are likely to hire him, especially in the USA? Or he's a freelance anything--anyone searching for his business online is now privy to his private affairs. Think that won't hurt him for the rest of his life?
By this point, Dave and I have broken up. He doesn't want to be alone--neither do I--so he starts trying to date. As we all do. He's good looking and largely a decent sort, so he starts meeting guys. For first dates. Doesn't get too many second dates, because when they Google him, there it is: "Dave is a cheating lying scumbag!" Nevermind that it was the result of a poor decision made after too many drinks at a party when I was out of town, and nevermind that he'd never done so before and never will again, and nevermind that he was contrite and begged me to forgive him. He doesn't even get the chance to explain, because who's going to say "Yeah, let's go out again" after they've read that he cheated on me?
Eventually, let's be generous, Dave manages to get someone to overlook this or gets a chance to explain what happened and finds a nice chap to settle down with. Fifteen years from now when his children are inevitably searching his name online, up comes his indiscretion. How do you think he, or his children, will feel about that? "So Daddy Dave was dating some guy before he met Daddy Mike, and cheated on him. What a jerk!" is something likely to cause friction within a family.
Now go re-read all that, but this time, he didn't actually cheat. I just said he did because I was hurt and angry.
This is why we have laws, in large part; you have privacy until you break them, and while obviously imperfect as the legal system is, some burden of proof must be met before your name can be publicly linked to a crime. And if that burden of proof isn't met, the rumours will still follow you but at least there's some standard proof you can point to.
These sites have no such burden of proof. I can lie about Dave as much as I like, and it's very hard for him to fight back. I had terrible, awful rumours floating around about me roughly 17 years ago because my then-boyfriend was lying to everyone (tl;dr he told me we were dating, he told everyone else we weren't, which made all my behaviour around him look extremely bizarre at best, especially since I was new in town and the only people I knew were people he had introduced me to). This was pre-Internet-saturation, and it took me the better part of a decade and moving across the country (not the reason I moved) before the stain faded away. Because of him, there were people who wouldn't date me--one who, years later, told me he'd only recently discovered the truth and felt like an idiot. Because of him, I had difficulty making friends for quite a while, or at least close friends. And it was virtually impossible for me to fight back against it, because I just looked like a seriously deluded person. Even after he'd admitted what he'd done to a bunch of people (and I, in the folly of youth and hormones, decided to date him again wtf), that rumour had long since gone into the wild--people who didn't even know him had heard it.
I shudder to think how lonely my life in the intervening years could have been if those lies came up next to my name in a Google search.
So that, right there, is a concrete example of how rumour--undocumented, unproven, and resident only in peoples' memories--can skew your life in unpleasant ways. Now take the same unproven rumour, but make sure it lives forever by putting it on the internet. It will follow you everywhere.
I have no idea to this day what his reasons were. The whole episode is just bizarre. But he did; people lie all the time. Assholes on the internet, especially, lie all the time. And there is no safety mechanism to prevent permanent damage to your life, even if you cheated in the first place. That boyfriend broke my heart and caused a great deal of stress--but I haven't used his name, because he was 18 and stupid and made a terrible mistake and doesn't deserve to have that follow him for the rest of his life.
Everyone makes mistakes. It's the human condition. Some of our mistakes hurt other people in terrible ways. That doesn't mean we should be haunted by them every day; you cannot grow as a person with that hanging around your neck forever. Look at what happens with convicts in the USA; a large reason for recidivism is how very hard it is to get a decent job once you're out of jail. So you're stuck between poverty and selling drugs again.
Some people are serial cheaters. It sucks, from personal experience, to get hit by their shrapnel. Most people, however, aren't. They make mistakes. I've made that mistake once, and I never will again--but you seem to think that something stupid I did when I was 19, for which I was forgiven, should follow me for the rest of my life. Screw that.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:15 PM on October 13, 2014 [4 favorites]
But that's the thing. What reasonable definition of 'community' means 'everyone with internet access'? If I have a boyfriend named Dave (NB: I have never had a boyfriend named Dave) who cheats on me, 'warning' someone in Kathmandu is pretty unlikely to be useful to anyone at all, unless he moves there.
And then there he is, with a scarlet letter next to his name every time anyone Googles him. Let's say he wants to be a teacher, for example. Think any school boards are likely to hire him, especially in the USA? Or he's a freelance anything--anyone searching for his business online is now privy to his private affairs. Think that won't hurt him for the rest of his life?
By this point, Dave and I have broken up. He doesn't want to be alone--neither do I--so he starts trying to date. As we all do. He's good looking and largely a decent sort, so he starts meeting guys. For first dates. Doesn't get too many second dates, because when they Google him, there it is: "Dave is a cheating lying scumbag!" Nevermind that it was the result of a poor decision made after too many drinks at a party when I was out of town, and nevermind that he'd never done so before and never will again, and nevermind that he was contrite and begged me to forgive him. He doesn't even get the chance to explain, because who's going to say "Yeah, let's go out again" after they've read that he cheated on me?
Eventually, let's be generous, Dave manages to get someone to overlook this or gets a chance to explain what happened and finds a nice chap to settle down with. Fifteen years from now when his children are inevitably searching his name online, up comes his indiscretion. How do you think he, or his children, will feel about that? "So Daddy Dave was dating some guy before he met Daddy Mike, and cheated on him. What a jerk!" is something likely to cause friction within a family.
Now go re-read all that, but this time, he didn't actually cheat. I just said he did because I was hurt and angry.
This is why we have laws, in large part; you have privacy until you break them, and while obviously imperfect as the legal system is, some burden of proof must be met before your name can be publicly linked to a crime. And if that burden of proof isn't met, the rumours will still follow you but at least there's some standard proof you can point to.
These sites have no such burden of proof. I can lie about Dave as much as I like, and it's very hard for him to fight back. I had terrible, awful rumours floating around about me roughly 17 years ago because my then-boyfriend was lying to everyone (tl;dr he told me we were dating, he told everyone else we weren't, which made all my behaviour around him look extremely bizarre at best, especially since I was new in town and the only people I knew were people he had introduced me to). This was pre-Internet-saturation, and it took me the better part of a decade and moving across the country (not the reason I moved) before the stain faded away. Because of him, there were people who wouldn't date me--one who, years later, told me he'd only recently discovered the truth and felt like an idiot. Because of him, I had difficulty making friends for quite a while, or at least close friends. And it was virtually impossible for me to fight back against it, because I just looked like a seriously deluded person. Even after he'd admitted what he'd done to a bunch of people (and I, in the folly of youth and hormones, decided to date him again wtf), that rumour had long since gone into the wild--people who didn't even know him had heard it.
I shudder to think how lonely my life in the intervening years could have been if those lies came up next to my name in a Google search.
So that, right there, is a concrete example of how rumour--undocumented, unproven, and resident only in peoples' memories--can skew your life in unpleasant ways. Now take the same unproven rumour, but make sure it lives forever by putting it on the internet. It will follow you everywhere.
I have no idea to this day what his reasons were. The whole episode is just bizarre. But he did; people lie all the time. Assholes on the internet, especially, lie all the time. And there is no safety mechanism to prevent permanent damage to your life, even if you cheated in the first place. That boyfriend broke my heart and caused a great deal of stress--but I haven't used his name, because he was 18 and stupid and made a terrible mistake and doesn't deserve to have that follow him for the rest of his life.
Everyone makes mistakes. It's the human condition. Some of our mistakes hurt other people in terrible ways. That doesn't mean we should be haunted by them every day; you cannot grow as a person with that hanging around your neck forever. Look at what happens with convicts in the USA; a large reason for recidivism is how very hard it is to get a decent job once you're out of jail. So you're stuck between poverty and selling drugs again.
Some people are serial cheaters. It sucks, from personal experience, to get hit by their shrapnel. Most people, however, aren't. They make mistakes. I've made that mistake once, and I never will again--but you seem to think that something stupid I did when I was 19, for which I was forgiven, should follow me for the rest of my life. Screw that.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:15 PM on October 13, 2014 [4 favorites]
corb: Realistically, how are you supposed to warn each other in a community too large for people to all know each other?
i really think you're proposing a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. The entire premise of needing this sort of widespread warning service is flawed.
This system already exists. I know of people who were well known in a local community/scene as abusers or rapists who moved across the country to try and escape everyone shunning them, but someone in that scene knew someone in the town they went to, spread the info their, and everyone was quickly notified.
And hell, i've had stupid shit i did when i was 19 still follow me around when i'm close to my 25th birthday by word of mouth. People still pull me aside and ask me "hey, so and so told me about this, is it true?" or "just so you know, people are saying you did such and such, i know you didn't/i knew about it but i just thought you'd want to know people are talking about it".
If anything, the existing system works slightly too good. Memes, or whatever you want to call them, stick around for well past their expiry date. We don't need to lubricate the "wheels of justice" any more or make it any more widespread. Especially when people are still talking gossip on things people i know did the summer after high school when they're in their mid 20s.
No one in new york needs to know what stupid shit i did when i was a teenager. And really, some of them probably already do.
I can't help but feel this system adds more avenues for low effort abuse and "trolling" than it does any protection or public service. the burden placed on something to automatically stir shit for years is incredibly low. with the existing system, it takes actual effort and putting yourself out there to tell people you trust, or neutral third parties, or people you sort of know, or whatever "hey, did you know so and so did this!?!?!". Anonymizing it takes away having to put your credentials on the table.
And while i'm generally sympathetic to arguments of "but women shouldn't have to put their info out there against men who might want to hurt them!", in this instance it's something run by a guy to talk shit on women, and i think if you're going to make these kinds of infidelity accusations you really should have to put your face on it. This isn't some "identify an abuser!" site. There's a definite petty element to it.
If you want to sling mud, you should have to get some on yourself. This is the social equivalent of drone warfare.
posted by emptythought at 5:01 PM on October 13, 2014
i really think you're proposing a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. The entire premise of needing this sort of widespread warning service is flawed.
This system already exists. I know of people who were well known in a local community/scene as abusers or rapists who moved across the country to try and escape everyone shunning them, but someone in that scene knew someone in the town they went to, spread the info their, and everyone was quickly notified.
And hell, i've had stupid shit i did when i was 19 still follow me around when i'm close to my 25th birthday by word of mouth. People still pull me aside and ask me "hey, so and so told me about this, is it true?" or "just so you know, people are saying you did such and such, i know you didn't/i knew about it but i just thought you'd want to know people are talking about it".
If anything, the existing system works slightly too good. Memes, or whatever you want to call them, stick around for well past their expiry date. We don't need to lubricate the "wheels of justice" any more or make it any more widespread. Especially when people are still talking gossip on things people i know did the summer after high school when they're in their mid 20s.
No one in new york needs to know what stupid shit i did when i was a teenager. And really, some of them probably already do.
I can't help but feel this system adds more avenues for low effort abuse and "trolling" than it does any protection or public service. the burden placed on something to automatically stir shit for years is incredibly low. with the existing system, it takes actual effort and putting yourself out there to tell people you trust, or neutral third parties, or people you sort of know, or whatever "hey, did you know so and so did this!?!?!". Anonymizing it takes away having to put your credentials on the table.
And while i'm generally sympathetic to arguments of "but women shouldn't have to put their info out there against men who might want to hurt them!", in this instance it's something run by a guy to talk shit on women, and i think if you're going to make these kinds of infidelity accusations you really should have to put your face on it. This isn't some "identify an abuser!" site. There's a definite petty element to it.
If you want to sling mud, you should have to get some on yourself. This is the social equivalent of drone warfare.
posted by emptythought at 5:01 PM on October 13, 2014
Regarding the facebook app for anonymously reporting sexual assault: for it to really work one would expect it to be truely 100% anonymous, and if it is truly 100% anonymous it is trivially exploitable, and anyone, regardless of relationship to the accused or gender could use it as a tool for revenge.
False claims of rape and abuse are rare, but the privilege of anonymity changes that dynamic. Don't think that some asshole isn't going to go on fb, create a female account, and mark someone as an abuser.
posted by idiopath at 5:11 PM on October 13, 2014
False claims of rape and abuse are rare, but the privilege of anonymity changes that dynamic. Don't think that some asshole isn't going to go on fb, create a female account, and mark someone as an abuser.
posted by idiopath at 5:11 PM on October 13, 2014
The AlJazeera article doesn't mention that under each "cheater" post on the cheaterville site (each one that I saw, anyway) is a prominent ad (pic) offering "independent arbitration" for removing a post about you - for around $200... and apparently even if you pay and the post is removed, it can be reposted with slightly different info, and you have to pay again to have it "arbitrated" and removed again. So anyone can anonymously keep making new posts saying anything about you there, and you'd just have to keep paying to try to have it removed – until you're all out of patience, credulity, or money, I guess. At ripoffreport.com, the owner of the "arbitration" service says in response to a complaint:
"Some posters are relentless and they do make additional posts containing different information. Before Cheaterville.com will remove a posting, they require that Truth in Posting conduct an additional investigation into any NEW claims that are made."posted by taz at 3:21 AM on October 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
Those of you who think it's so much easier for abusers to be shamed and recognised seem to never have been in situations where you as the abused have tried to speak up about your abusers, but everyone else in the community either doesn't want to say anything or support you openly because the abusers are in a position of power, or they just don't care because it's "too much drama".
And I say this as someone who has had vicious rumours dog me in the past, as well as someone who was incredibly unsuccessful in getting people to believe me when I spoke up about abuse (for the factors above). And I am far from the only one who has faced this.
posted by divabat at 10:12 AM on October 14, 2014 [2 favorites]
And I say this as someone who has had vicious rumours dog me in the past, as well as someone who was incredibly unsuccessful in getting people to believe me when I spoke up about abuse (for the factors above). And I am far from the only one who has faced this.
posted by divabat at 10:12 AM on October 14, 2014 [2 favorites]
corb: But see, the part that I don't get is the "you have no recourse" stuff. Of course you have recourse. If someone is going to date you and sees that you may have been a cheater, you can just provide the contact information for your exes and let them call over...
I'm not getting why anyone would think that makes sense.
Basically you're saying that in interpersonal relations, everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
As far as the recourse: this to me sounds like you're saying that if it's broadly logically possible for someone to do something, then by definition, they are able to do it. But if, like a lot of women I've known (some worked with, some dated, some am acquainted with through friends or spouse), you, say, leave an abusive spouse who has the resources, free time and lack of scruples to relentlessly heap accusations on your head -- then your broad, logical ability to take action is kind of fucking irrelevant.
One token case that's pretty typical: If you're waiting tables 50 hrs / wk to make rent and pay for day care that you need because you left your abusive husband, you probably don't have the time to spend finding the people your estranged spouse is trashing you to and providing references -- especially if he's been controlling your social contact for the previous 4 or 5 years. As is common.
So, no, I don't think 'you could police your own reputation in response' to be in any way a useful response to character-assassination-for-hire.
posted by lodurr at 1:33 PM on October 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm not getting why anyone would think that makes sense.
Basically you're saying that in interpersonal relations, everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
As far as the recourse: this to me sounds like you're saying that if it's broadly logically possible for someone to do something, then by definition, they are able to do it. But if, like a lot of women I've known (some worked with, some dated, some am acquainted with through friends or spouse), you, say, leave an abusive spouse who has the resources, free time and lack of scruples to relentlessly heap accusations on your head -- then your broad, logical ability to take action is kind of fucking irrelevant.
One token case that's pretty typical: If you're waiting tables 50 hrs / wk to make rent and pay for day care that you need because you left your abusive husband, you probably don't have the time to spend finding the people your estranged spouse is trashing you to and providing references -- especially if he's been controlling your social contact for the previous 4 or 5 years. As is common.
So, no, I don't think 'you could police your own reputation in response' to be in any way a useful response to character-assassination-for-hire.
posted by lodurr at 1:33 PM on October 14, 2014 [1 favorite]
I want to clarify something because I don't think it's been stated enough: To endorse the idea that it's valid to engage in character assassination in retaliation for character assassination is to endorse the idea that might makes right.
That's really very simple, very clear.
We have laws and civil society so we don't have to live that way.
posted by lodurr at 8:26 AM on October 15, 2014 [3 favorites]
That's really very simple, very clear.
We have laws and civil society so we don't have to live that way.
posted by lodurr at 8:26 AM on October 15, 2014 [3 favorites]
« Older Gunther, Christine and Otto: The 26 Year Road Trip | "...the expansion and contraction of this... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by divabat at 1:02 PM on October 10, 2014