So, I just finished up that series on what happened behind the scenes on Vampire: The Masquerade 5th Edition. Your response has been good.
I'm planning on doing a series on the whole saga with Mike Mearls, creative head of Dungeons and Dragons, going in to the conspiracy theories there about when I consulted on D&D 5e, the lawsuits, etc. with receipts. It, unsurprisingly, features a lot of the same characters...
If you want the story here's what you should do: one time, using a persistent identity online, fact-check some element of a hatemob conspiracy theory. Find a place where their spreading misinformation, correct it, be complete, follow up in 48 hours or more. As always, never harass, personally attack, threaten or namecall anyone. The point is to check the spread of misinformation. If you're confused, ask a question.
When you've done that, email me: zakzsmith AT hawtmayle dawt calm and show me a link or screenchot showing you did it.
As before, if I get 100 responses, that's enough to convince me people actually care about this stuff, and I'll start putting out the piece.
Naturally, this could take a while or might not even happen--in which case, that's fine. No point in going to all the effort if it's not reaching people who want things to be better.
-Z
-
-
-
29 comments:
do you mean respond to the person or just gather proof they're wrong?
@amogus
Correct the misinformation in whatever venue where it appears.
okay, so if jimmy fucko is saying, I dunno, "Zak S is a neo-nazi."
you'd want us to be like, "Hey, that's false. Here's a bunch of zak's blogposts about nazis being shit, here's a list of people he denounced for being nazis or close enough, etc. Do you have any evidence that Zak is lying?"
@amogus
That's a good example.
lol they already mad on twitter, this is gonna be fun
Remember: The primary point is -not- to make people mad, it's to check the spread of misinformation. I don't condone any harassment and won't count as a "vote" anything that's harassment. I won't count anything that's dishonest, unfair or delivered with any kind of personal attack.
If someone says something not true--tell them that, drop evidence, be polite, follow up.
Why did you sue Mike Mearls?
@Travis I
He said things that weren't true.
What’s your Twitter?
What’s your Twitter?
And there wasn’t anything on the leaflets that originally came with the books?
@rusty
ihititwithmyaxe
@rusty
Of course not, Rusty.
Are we talking about this specific hatemob?
@simon
the tabletop rpg one, yes.
@nwg
Erased. Misinformation is -not- allowed in the comments.
If you believed you've received this message in error, email zakzsmith AT hawtmayle dawt calm.
So I've been pondering this post for a day now and why I'm uncomfortable with it. I think part of it is that I think this call to action will result in some behavior that actually constitutes harassment (personal attacks or worse) as opposed to what many of the "hatemob" have characterized as harassment (feeling uncomfortable with direct confrontation about public comments). I think you recognize that the risk is there, which is why you added a comment that any screenshots which contain harassment won't count as a vote.
If I'm right about that, and that you're aware of that risk and issued this call to action anyway, are you just considering any actual harassment acceptable collateral damage? Or do you see it differently?
@pubby88
1. I don't think it will result in harassment and you should re-think.
Here's how I know: For over a decade of these dipshits making this same claim--that if I ask followers to fact-check online gamers lying, it secretly results in harassment. And yet in all that time not a single goddamn link or screenshot of that happening in reponse to me has ever turned up. Not one.
And people have looked. Often they've looked very hard, because it would've helped them immensely to find it.
2. The reason I put that disclaimer is simply because I knew they'd claim I asked people to harass them. Since the post explicitly decries harassment, it proves they are lying. Not just mistaken, lying.
3. Anyone who might harass them is doing the opposite of what I said and not my responsibility at all, or yours.
4. There are lots of depersonalized ways to fact-check misinformation, if you are uncomfortable doing one that requires confronting a person, do one of those instead.
And, of course, the claim I asked anyone to harass anyone is one more piece of misinformation you can fact-check.
Harassment constitutes aggressive pressure or intimidation.
Persistence on the other hand is firm or obstinate continuance in a course of action in spite of difficulty or opposition.
Never calling people anything, never making assumptions without examples cited or at hand, nothing but polite refusal to acknowledge something as counter to evidence you share, these are all hallmarks of refutation and discussion.
A lot of people try to call people out in social media by insulting and belittling them.
This is not what Zak or the community wants.
Zak wants people held accountable in a adult fashion for playground level information handling, like "I Heard", or "allegedly" as a catch-all, or people continually asserting things that can hurt people or organizations or movements without any named source or citable evidence.
In short, he wants misinformation to be addressed in our supposed community.
(And: while there's no good reason to have an issue with that, if somebody has an issue with that, they can easily block you)
@Benjamin
@zak
Yes, I agree Zak is very clear that there shouldn't be any genuine harassment. My question was whether a call like this might lead to it anyway, because there's certainly a track record for "Zak says something on the internet, and people ignore the nuance." But his point that there hasn't been any hard evidence of genuine harassment is well taken and one I'm going to spend a little time googling just to verify.
I absolutely agree that clear fact checking of misinformation is worthwhile.
@pubby88
The fact that you even thought there was harassment is proof that they tricked you and that they're not being fact-checked enough.
They literally say that so that they can lie and nobody will stop them. That's the entire point of the tactic.
I hope we can represent ourselves in a manner that does our movement proud, and am glad you are asking questions like this.
This is the kind of thinking and dialogue that prevents people going out and harassing mistakenly and being as bad as why at they are trying to prevent.
There is a track record or Zak saying things to invite discussion or fact-checking, but not necessarily of those things causing or inciting harassment.
Any time there has been anything adjacent he has responded or clarified his position or intentions.
The issue is that harassment has somewhat hazy definitions to these people, and persistence and fact-checking somehow qualify as such in a large amount of cases.
Perhaps Zak could even address this with some of the examples the hatemob would use to say he invited harassment, and clarify or link his responses to them, in effect to counterargument and make his position clear. He has multiple times, but maybe some people haven't seen them.
@Benjamin Cusack
You want an example of me saying "don't harass anyone" and my followers not harassing anyone and then online abusers claiming I was?
You're looking right at one. This post.
I should clarify, "The issue is that harassment has somewhat hazy definitions to these people, and persistence and fact-checking somehow qualify as such in a large amount of cases."<== According to the hatemob, they are the ones who validate and qualify these necessary tools in discourse as invalid and damaging.
This is not valid definition, but they seem to believe/hold it up as logical and correct. Fact-checking and persistence when doing so are NOT harassment.
No, I have no need for one, I simply am saying that some people are too lazy or apathetic to look for the examples the hive might bring up, things like "get at him" or other posts pointing at a particular person in the past that they attempt to Levy against you as examples ylof you inciting harassment.
These have been debunked and explained by you before, and perhaps some of the people hesitant like pubby88 need to be directed or shown these refutations.
Just a thought on a way to make this issue even clearer, and even more of a strengths position for you if people point at this post and claim it is harassment. As you said, people who do that are not only ignorant, they are willfully lying, and a response in the vein of what I suggested above is countering even more of what they might bring to the fore.
Then again, these people claim your entire announcements blog is you making fun of people you abused, when in reality, on reading your posts there, it is clear that you were the abused in that relationship.
And you have more than hearsay, you have legal witnesses and messages and emails and PROOF.
Do we have a head count of at least double digits?
Any semblance of effort from the community?
@Benjamin Cusack
If the count is high, people will not fact-check because they assume other people will do it.
If the count is low, people will not fact-check because they will assume it's pointless.
So I'm not going to publish the count til it hits the target
Post a Comment