LJ abuse go ape?

[ciphergoth]

Updated: meta has updated his web page.

meta, who I've known for over a decade but never met, has had his account suspended by the LJ abuse team. Here's his side of the story. Now, in context, the "innocent" act of copying a publically available address from one place to another isn't innocent at all - it reads as an incitement to violence - but nonetheless, it's pretty clear that if things are as he describes them, the Abuse team's response is pretty inappropriate.

I'd like to link to the support request, but we don't have the privs to see it.

Comments

[countess-sophia.livejournal.com]

I think that the fact that it reads like an incitement to violence is the reason they took the strong action they did. If something had occurred as a result of this - admittedly unlikely - and it was shown that LJ had taken no action then there could be trouble.

I also think that what Meta did was completely wrong. It doesn't matter that something is available elsewhere on the web, there was no reason to post it to LJ. I have been on the receiving end of this: people (well, neo-Nazi holocaust deniers) posting bits of my website to usenet history groups in an attempt to discredit me. It's a low and scummy tactic. I cannot see what he hoped to achieve.

That said, deleting the offensive posts and a firm warning to those involved would have been the more appropriate response.

Soph

[(Anonymous)]

If you publish the information publically on your web site, what on earth are your grounds for considering it "low and scummy" to quote it?

- meta

[countess-sophia.livejournal.com]

Meta has replied to my comment - I have been informed by lj e-mail - but apparently I don't have permission to see or reply to his comment. I therefore quote it here:

If you publish the information publicly on your web site, what on earth
are your grounds for considering it "low and scummy" to quote it?

It is low and scummy because it's an ad hominem, which is always the sign of someone who has lost an argument and is attempting to win by dishonest, intellectually bankrupt means. The material quoted - my views on SM and my negotiation list - had no relevance to the matters being discussed, and was also completely inappropriate for the place it was posted, a forum devoted to history.

[(Anonymous)]

Quoting someone else does not necessarily make the argument ad hominem. After all, you just quoted me--does that mean your argument is ad hominem too?

Also, the fact that material quoted may be inappropriate for the community is not the issue being argued in this case. As I've said, if the community moderator for b0st0n had decided the comment was inappropriate and deleted it, there wouldn't be a problem.

- meta

[ergotia.livejournal.com]

I have siad this before and will no doubt say it again, but argument ad hominem in my view is not automatically invalid. Feminist discourse for example has always lent weight to experiental analysis, which can easily be classed as argument ad hominem, and if it had not done so many women would never have found any voice.