I'm a former IC ZZL/P Mod = AMA

  • Thread starter Thread starter SnoopRob
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 772
  • Views: 12K
  • Off-Topic 
sunnyheel said:
I really do appreciate how the board’s PTBs were faced with a challenge when dealing with racist hate speech. Beyond the obvious slurs, it becomes a grey area, and I can see how Uncle Tom would be offensive to a protected class. I tried to find a replacement term that conveys the same meaning. Kapo hit the mark, and I found no indication that it could convey bigotry or an offensive connotation to a protected class. I still don’t see that but was forced instead to rely upon awkward phrasing such as “a member of a class that trades on their antagonistic stance toward members of their class to achieve status and other gain via support from bigots.” It all reeks of performative political correctness to appease rightist critics; I complied albeit grudgingly.

But you still haven’t answered my question: What is the explanation for the board’s double standard of exacting to the point of mental gymnastics enforcement of “hate speech” vs never mind about posting copyrighted material?

I mean, regardless of Xitter’s rules, this is a much simpler call under the board rules to judge.

Again, it’s capriciousness.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting a moral equivalency between the historic , continuing, and new harms caused by racial prejudice to the harms of copyright law violation?

Are you further suggesting that you have no knowledge of the Fair Use doctrine?

en.wikipedia.org

Fair use - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

17 U.S.C. § 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  • the nature of the copyrighted work;
  • the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  • the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
...

In short, we must often ... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.
 
sunnyheel said:
I really do appreciate how the board’s PTBs were faced with a challenge when dealing with racist hate speech. Beyond the obvious slurs, it becomes a grey area, and I can see how Uncle Tom would be offensive to a protected class. I tried to find a replacement term that conveys the same meaning. Kapo hit the mark, and I found no indication that it could convey bigotry or an offensive connotation to a protected class. I still don’t see that but was forced instead to rely upon awkward phrasing such as “a member of a class that trades on their antagonistic stance toward members of their class to achieve status and other gain via support from bigots.” It all reeks of performative political correctness to appease rightist critics; I complied albeit grudgingly.

But you still haven’t answered my question: What is the explanation for the board’s double standard of exacting to the point of mental gymnastics enforcement of “hate speech” vs never mind about posting copyrighted material?

I mean, regardless of Xitter’s rules, this is a much simpler call under the board rules to judge.

Again, it’s capriciousness.
Click to expand...
I've answered the copyright question, do you just not understand it?

Twitter wants tweets shared far and wide. They created and continue to support the ability of their software that allows those tweets to be shared far and wide. There is no practical copyright issue at play here.

I've already said that the mods should have likely done a better job enforcing copyright for articles and the like that weren't publicly available.

What do you not understand in that?
 
Ddseddse said:
Are you suggesting a moral equivalency between the historic , continuing, and new harms caused by racial prejudice to the harms of copyright law violation?

Are you further suggesting that you have no knowledge of the Fair Use doctrine?

en.wikipedia.org

Fair use - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

17 U.S.C. § 107
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  • the nature of the copyrighted work;
  • the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  • the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
...

In short, we must often ... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.
Click to expand...
Neither.

My point is that rules serve the purpose of establishing board standards for the benefit of the community, and capricious enforcement inevitably leads to negative consequences, such as loss of confidence in authority and the inevitable diminution in quality.

I realize that some may not view the Xittification as a loss but that’s my take. Hypocrisy also has moral consequences.
 
SnoopRob said:
I've answered the copyright question, do you just not understand it?

Twitter wants tweets shared far and wide. They created and continue to support the ability of their software that allows those tweets to be shared far and wide. There is no practical copyright issue at play here.

I've already said that the mods should have likely done a better job enforcing copyright for articles and the like that weren't publicly available.

What do you not understand in that?
Click to expand...
I understand your point: if Xitter and the WSJ don’t care that we allow the wholesale republication of their copyrighted material, then why should we?

The answer to that, as I’ve already explained, is that the failure of those big media outlets to enforce copyrights does not excuse your own failure to enforce your clearly stated rules which are presumably created for the benefit of the board’s business. The consequence is loss of credibility and authority and the Xittification of that platform.

And its ultimate failure.
 
sunnyheel said:
Neither.

My point is that rules serve the purpose of establishing board standards for the benefit of the community, and capricious enforcement inevitably leads to negative consequences, such as loss of confidence in authority and the inevitable diminution in quality.

I realize that some may not view the Xittification as a loss but that’s my take. Hypocrisy also has moral consequences.
Click to expand...
What is the difference between sharing a sharable gift link to a 100% copyrighted WaPO article that the WaPo explicitly makes available, and sharing a link to a (copyrighted? If, so, by whom? The author? Twitter?) Tweet via a shareable link that Twitter explicitly makes available?

TBH, I'm not really sure what's going on here. It seems you have an axe to grind and have chosen a wildly baffling line of reasoning to grind that axe. Dunno, Can't really help you out much further, becuse I really don't have a clue where you're coming from.
 
Last edited:
Ddseddse said:
What is the difference between sharing a sharable link to a 100% copyrighted WaPO article that the WaPo explicitly makes available, and sharing a link to a (copyrighted? If, so, by whom? The author? Twitter?) Tweet via a shareable link that Twitter explicitly makes available?

TBH, I'm not really sure what's going on here. It seems you have an axe to grind and have chosen a wildly baffling line of reasoning to grind that axe. Dunno, Can't really help you out much further, becuse I really don't have a clue where you're coming from.
Click to expand...
See above
 
CFordUNC said:
Ha! Fair enough. I do just want to point out, though, that rarely do I proactively instigate any shit talking to another poster unprovoked (incidentally, I did do it on this thread with the yellow jacket dude, whom I simply don’t like). The vast majority of my trash talking is almost always in response to some moron deciding to engage me first when I’ve said nothing to them in particular. When that happens, I am more than happy to indulge them- I’ve been very honest for a while now that it is a character flaw of mine.
Click to expand...
Just giving you a hard time. I try to keep it light as much as possible on the board.
 
I can't resist being a little bit of an agitator and I cannot resist a bad pun. If the two combine, it's possible I might hurt some feelings. Oh well. Feel free to respond in kind. I almost certainly didn't mean to offend.

You can count on two things. You can't ever hurt my feelings on a message board by anything you say. The other is that, while it doesn't bother me in the least in you draw the wrong conclusions by something I say, I'm entirely too lazy to lie. To hell with keeping my stories straight. Not worth the time or effort.
 
sunnyheel said:
See above
Click to expand...
You are very confused.

If someone hangs a "No Trespassing" sign on their property, and then invites me over to dinner, I can't be prosecuted for trespassing.

The fact that a Tweet satisfies the requirements to be copyrighted (and not all Tweets do), and is then shared publicly, it's public consumption can not constitute a copyright violation.

What might constitute a copyright violation would be if I stole the meme from your Tweet and started selling T-shits featuring your original work. But posting a link to that 100% publicly shared Tweet is NOT copyright violation.

As to your large point (I think? I'm still not quite sure.), misrepresenting (intentionally or otherwise) how rules work and/or and iron clad rigidity and pedanticness coming form a place of "I'm looking to grind my axe" is , in my opinion, MORE corrosive to trust and and a functioning social platform than granting the thankless moderators the space to make the necessary judgement calls at the margins that are the keystone to any social system being functional instead of completely dysfunctional.

Somehow I doubt we'll agree. In any event I've given this more thought than it really deserves and won't be engaging further.
 
This site allows embedding content from all of the below - so I would assume all are ok having their content shared.

 
sunnyheel said:
. Kapo hit the mark, and I found no indication that it could convey bigotry or an offensive connotation to a protected class.
Click to expand...
You have to be fucking kidding me. Did you read wikipedia?

After World War II, the term was reused as an insult; according to The Jewish Chronicle, it is "the worst insult a Jew can give another Jew"
en.wikipedia.org

Kapo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

One reason Kapo is offensive is the same as Uncle Tom -- it marginalizes the experience of the collaborator, and therefore casts unfair aspersions on the person being called that name. Kapos are now considered victims of the Holocaust (as they should be), and Uncle Tom was of course a slave. Their will was not their own. Maybe you dream that you would make different choices under those circumstances, but it's just wrong to assume that the choices were easy or unproblematic to anyone presented with them. And then, by invoking these metaphors to describe black people today (I think that was your meaning), you are implying that they lack free will. Again, you can disagree with Herschel Walker and think he's an idiot and a comically weird Senatorial candidate without suggesting that his opinions are something other than his own.
 
It's unreal how people are taking shots at SnoopRob without even bothering to consider the issue from his perspective. Or even having any perspective.

Try an experiment. Listen to Nirvana's Nevermind album, and then listen to their debut album Bleach. Notice something? Nevermind has much better sound quality. That's probably related to another fact, which is that Bleach cost like $3000 to make and Nevermind well over 100K. But I like Bleach and I listen to it. Part of that experience is accepting that the sound quality isn't going to be great. The sound quality, after all, is connected to one of the great things about that album: it was pure Nirvana, with no corporate oversight or mainstream producers trying to make Nirvana sound kind of like a heavier R.E.M.

So too with the ZZL. It was a free message board, and the moderators were unpaid. You're not going to get Nevermind quality moderation. That's not because the moderators suck or couldn't do better if they were professionals; it's because they were volunteers and doing the best they could within the commitment that could be reasonably expected of them (not to mention cross-currents from above). They were giving Bleach-quality moderation.

And, like the Bleach album, the low cost was an integral part of the ZZL's appeal -- namely, that it was free and anyone could post. I would not have posted on the ZZL if it cost money, and I'm guessing that's true of many other posters. So if you ever liked discussing issues with me, or learning from me, or teaching me -- well, that benefit came with the cost of volunteer moderation. I think it was a good trade or I wouldn't have posted. Sunnyheel sure seemed to enjoy boxing with me (either that or he was a masochist), so for him to complain about the imperfections in moderation is basically ridiculous. It's like going to your local Mexican cantina and complaining about the lack of a tasting menu.
 
farce© said:
Why are you so coy about your IC username? You must be very embarrassed by your posting history.
Click to expand...
I have no reason to provide it. It was from, I'm guessing, well over a decade ago when I had much different views and a much diffent approach to posting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top