Boing Boing and the Unpersoning of Violet Blue

I’m not a big Boing Boing reader — Metafilter either — and Making Light is so far out of my orbit it might as well be Techcrunch.

Regardless, bloggers or the whack-job moderation team at Boing Boing saw fit to delete all 72 posts and references to Violet Blue. I’m thinking maybe too much coffee was the cause.

The un-personing of Ms. Blue by one of the web’s leading free-speech and anti-censorship advocates has me wondering whether they wouldn’t have done better recruiting moderation help and advice through a temp agency. On the other hand, the imprudent move, the repetitive pounding on the delete key (one has the image of the disemvoweller herself banging her head over and over against the keyboard until all the offending material was removed), has managed to spark hundreds of comments at Boing Boing and about one thousand comments so far at metafilter.

Here is a spreadsheet with references to each of the deleted posts stored on the Wayback Machine web archive.

Thanks Brewster! I knew the Web Archive would come in handy some day. I’m sure this is why you invented it.

[tags]in for a penny in for a shilling, tiny nibbles, la mordida[/tags]

5 thoughts on “Boing Boing and the Unpersoning of Violet Blue

  1. Just imagine the “discussion” over at BB on how to deal with this: “We got us a situation. Buy Sell Buy Sell.”

    “Bottom line is that those posts (not “more than 100 posts,” as erroneously claimed elsewhere) were removed from public view a year ago. Violet behaved in a way that made us reconsider whether we wanted to lend her any credibility or associate with her. It’s our blog and so we made an editorial decision, like we do every single day. We didn’t attempt to silence Violet. We unpublished our own work. There’s a big difference between that and censorship.”

    Umkay. “We made an editorial decision”? “…behaved in a way…”? “…big difference between that and censorship…”?

    Well “You The Decider”: TNH. You’ve made that perfectly clear. Whenever I’ve tried to leave a civil comment asking whether BoingBoring takes product for posts it is promptly scrubbed. Some have gotten through – I have screenshots – only to be later “disappeared”.

    One problem with your long awaited explanation: You didn’t start at BB until less than a year ago: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/28/welcome-to-the-new-b.html
    so I am confused as to how you could have made an “editorial decision” to remove posts concerning Violet Blue “a year ago”.

    I guess they were so impressed by your readership manipulation (“removing a post is not censorship”) at your fiefdom that they thought you could bring some of your narcoleptic informed “editorialising” to BB and drag some of your court along with you. “Owen, get me a cigarette.” Two words: Steampunk Wheelchair.

    Millie Crip would laugh at your lying sci-fi machinations.

    I don’t have any feelings for Violet Blue one way or the other, but for a blog(?!) that takes pride in exposing others who are guilty of duplicity, non-transparency, over control and privacy invasion – BB are looking more and more like the money grubbing corporate whores they pretend so hard not to be.

    “Online censorship hurts us all

    Those who are trying to “protect” artists are actually making things worse

    * Cory Doctorow
    * guardian.co.uk,
    * Tuesday October 2, 2007
    * Article history

    Artists have lots of problems. We get plagiarised, ripped off by publishers, savaged by critics, counterfeited — and we even get our works copied by “pirates” who give our stuff away for free online.

    But no matter how bad these problems get, they’re a distant second to the gravest, most terrifying problem an artist can face: censorship.

    It’s one thing to be denied your credit or compensation, but it’s another thing entirely to have your work suppressed, burned or banned.”

    What a CUNTE! Unfortunately I am not surprised. Anyone who thinks that Doctorow, Jardin (formerly Hamm), etc are not as greedy as Arrington or Scoble is severely deluded. Follow the fucking money. Same queens different jeans.

    A more potent analogue of pemoline, 4-methylaminorex has appeared as a black market drug with abuse potential similar to methamphetamine.
    A more potent analogue of pemoline, 4-methylaminorex has appeared as a black market drug with abuse potential similar to methamphetamine.
    A more potent analogue of pemoline, 4-methylaminorex has appeared as a black market drug with abuse potential similar to methamphetamine.
    A more potent analogue of pemoline, 4-methylaminorex has appeared as a black market drug with abuse potential similar to methamphetamine.
    A more potent analogue of pemoline, 4-methylaminorex has appeared as a black market drug with abuse potential similar to methamphetamine.

    Disemvowel That.

  2. For what it’s worth, I was referring to the substitute 4-methylaminorex that THN shows all the signs of using since they took the drug Cylert off the market.

  3. It has always been about the money
    It has never not been about the money
    It has never been about freedom of speech by others
    It has always been about the money
    Besides Boing Boing’s demographic are folks who have just gotten pubic hair.

    Thank God for AdBlock Plus

Comments are closed.