This is another good article from last year on a very similar topic that I like: We Live in Fear of the Online Mobs. I really like the "forager band" comparison she makes in it:
This is another good article from last year on a very similar topic that I like: We Live in Fear of the Online Mobs. I really like the "forager band" comparison she makes in it:
We now effectively live in a forager band filled with people we don’t know. It's like the world’s biggest small town, replete with all the things that mid-century writers hated about small-town life: the constant gossip, the prying into your neighbor’s business, the small quarrels that blow up into lifelong feuds. We’ve replicated all of the worst features of those communities without any of the saving graces, like the mercy that one human being naturally offers another when you’re face to face and can see their suffering.
And, of course, you can't move away. There’s only one internet, and we’re all stuck here for the rest of our lives.
This is why on the Internet, anonymity and pseudonyms are important and the idea that, like in the story "True Names", it is important to keep your identity, your true name, private. You can say...
This is why on the Internet, anonymity and pseudonyms are important and the idea that, like in the story "True Names", it is important to keep your identity, your true name, private. You can say things and then just leave them behind later on. You can change your mind without someone bugging you years later about that stupid idea you had ages ago. I don't like being associated with my idiot younger self's views on anime (hated it, and now actually enjoy it).
Of course the flipside is that idiots and hate-speech-spewing assholes can also hide behind anonymity. Maybe having one internet is a bad idea, maybe the excessive push to have people associate themselves with their real identity on the internet is a terrible idea? It's opened up the tracking of people by marketers associating their real life purchases with online purchases, and it's opened up people to being doxxxed.
This is especially relevant in the wake of ArenaNet throwing Jessica Price under the bus because she had the temerity to call out a "fan" for presuming to explain to her something she's spent...
This is especially relevant in the wake of ArenaNet throwing Jessica Price under the bus because she had the temerity to call out a "fan" for presuming to explain to her something she's spent years doing for a living.
It's also personally relevant; as an independent novelist I'm expected to be available on social media to promote my own work, but that also means opening myself to abuse. I'm not interested in being a public figure. I just want to write some fun stories, publish them, and see them read, goddammit. I'm not interested in doing the emotional labor that comes with being a "public figure".
Furthermore, I occasionally get pressure from my day job to "represent the company", and I keep telling them that mine is not a customer-facing role, and I do not talk about my day job on social media for my own protection, the company's protection, and that of the company's clients.
Off-topic, but I'm still mad for her and really hopes she sues or something.
This is especially relevant in the wake of ArenaNet throwing Jessica Price under the bus because she had the temerity to call out a "fan" for presuming to explain to her something she's spent years doing for a living.
Off-topic, but I'm still mad for her and really hopes she sues or something.
I contacted the local Wobblies and spoke to the rep a bit and then nothing. Same with other unions. They aren't organizationally equipped to deal with tech workers or any influx of them who want...
I contacted the local Wobblies and spoke to the rep a bit and then nothing. Same with other unions. They aren't organizationally equipped to deal with tech workers or any influx of them who want to donate or build tools.
It's strange because on the free/open source side, we're well-equipped to handle influxes of helpers and volunteers. There's always documentation and unit tests to write or manual testing or evangelizing and writing tutorials that can be done. In the simplest case, donate some cash to pay for servers.
I'm hoping the Pursuance project closes this gap and makes it easier for Wobbly-like orgs to get better organized.
This is a shame, because organizing to fight back against abuses by corporations is an area where we techies don't really have a lot of experience and could use some help from people who have been...
I contacted the local Wobblies and spoke to the rep a bit and then nothing. Same with other unions. They aren't organizationally equipped to deal with tech workers or any influx of them who want to donate or build tools.
This is a shame, because organizing to fight back against abuses by corporations is an area where we techies don't really have a lot of experience and could use some help from people who have been in the trenches.
Definitely veering off-topic here: I did a bit of digging into this after I mentioned this issue, and as it turns out, the Kotaku article reporting on the fiasco skewed it to sound like it was an...
Definitely veering off-topic here: I did a bit of digging into this after I mentioned this issue, and as it turns out, the Kotaku article reporting on the fiasco skewed it to sound like it was an attack on being a female working in games (go figure, Kotaku journalism).
Apparently, Jessica Price has a history of being fairly unfiltered on social media, and she maintains that this should be her personal space to be however she wants, without ties back to ArenaNet.
Which should not be a firing offense. I agree with her. Was ArenaNet paying her to be on Twitter to represent them in the social space? Was that part of her job description? No. That was something...
Apparently, Jessica Price has a history of being fairly unfiltered on social media
Which should not be a firing offense.
she maintains that this should be her personal space to be however she wants
I agree with her.
without ties back to ArenaNet
Was ArenaNet paying her to be on Twitter to represent them in the social space? Was that part of her job description? No. That was something extra that ArenaNet was happy to take advantage of until a bunch of over-entitled nerds got pissy because she told one of them off for being presumptuous.
As far as I'm concerned, Deroir and his supports can go bugger themselves with rusty broadswords. If they think it's OK to bully somebody who isn't a government official over a tweet and threaten their livelihood, then it's obvious that they themselves weren't bullied enough as children because they have no idea what it's like to be afraid.
I honestly don't think the person responding to her was being entitled, and if you read the thread, you'd see that Deroir was being quite reasonable and didn't want trouble. If she wants to be...
I honestly don't think the person responding to her was being entitled, and if you read the thread, you'd see that Deroir was being quite reasonable and didn't want trouble.
If she wants to be unfiltered on social media, that's her prerogative, but she was speaking specifically about working on GW2, which invites discussion on the specific problem she was addressing. I believe the response to her original thread was an honest attempt at discussion and asking for insight, and that it wasn't fair for her to make this out to be an attack on females working in the games industry.
I'm not taking sides on if what she did was considered a fireable offense or not (though that is the actual topic this post was addressing). I am troubled at how this issue has been spun as gamegate2.0.
Maybe not, but you know what? Trouble was what he caused. Deroir might have expected Ms. Stern to read his "reasonable question" as yet another attempt by some random dude to "mansplain" with a...
if you read the thread, you'd see that Deroir was being quite reasonable and didn't want trouble
Maybe not, but you know what? Trouble was what he caused. Deroir might have expected Ms. Stern to read his "reasonable question" as yet another attempt by some random dude to "mansplain" with a modicum of imagination and forethought.
The problem with playing games like "Poke the Bear" is that the bear doesn't give a shit that you think it's just a game.
Jessica Stern is the bear. Her profile specifically says, "Salty. Won't play demure for you." Sure, the smart thing to her to do would have been to mute Deroir, ignore his tweet, and move the hell on -- but that's easy for me to suggest because I've got a cock and balls and I don't have to worry about legions of randos jumping up my asshole every time I express an opinion on the godforsaken internet.
I am troubled at how this issue has been spun as gamegate2.0.
We've got a bunch of assholes on a web forum getting worked up because a woman told off a guy on the internet, demanding that she be deprived of her livelihood, but you're troubled that people are drawing parallels between this and GamerGate?
Blocking is an option as is hosting the article on their own platform. It's perfectly fine to delete comments on your own blog. A bunch of wrongs here do not make a right. It's wrong for gamers or...
Sure, the smart thing to her to do would have been to mute Deroir, ignore his tweet, and move the hell on
Blocking is an option as is hosting the article on their own platform. It's perfectly fine to delete comments on your own blog.
We've got a bunch of assholes on a web forum getting worked up because a woman told off a guy on the internet, demanding that she be deprived of her livelihood, but you're troubled that people are drawing parallels between this and GamerGate?
A bunch of wrongs here do not make a right. It's wrong for gamers or fellow game devs to think it's okay to essentially snitch and dox someone. It's wrong for ArenaNet to fire this employee. It's also wrong for us not to have a union.
In my experience, blocking makes things worse because Twitter will tell you that you've been blocked, thus allowing you to retaliate by creating an alt account. However, Twitter won't tell you...
Blocking is an option
In my experience, blocking makes things worse because Twitter will tell you that you've been blocked, thus allowing you to retaliate by creating an alt account. However, Twitter won't tell you when you've been muted.
as is hosting the article on their own platform
Sure it is, but who goes to websites these days?
It's perfectly fine to delete comments on your own blog.
Better to not have comments at all. If somebody wants to have a say, they can damned well quote and link on their own blog.
His wording was polite, but he was pretty rude by acting like an authority when he isn't, and in a conversation with an actual authority, no less. And after she called him out (not rudely, either...
His wording was polite, but he was pretty rude by acting like an authority when he isn't, and in a conversation with an actual authority, no less. And after she called him out (not rudely, either - her first post was really tame), he acted indignant and was very much like 'I just wanted a discussion omg'. Even his later tweets about not wanting any part of it were dodgy, he goes to a lot of trouble to absolve himself of any wrongdoing with a very 'I would never' tone but that's pretty much it. Maybe it's just me, but being reasonable and not wanting trouble usually manifests a bit differently.
And it's 'spun' as gg2 because there is a woman who was shat on by keyboard warriors and fired from her job (along with a male coworker who basically just said that women indeed get way more condescending/mansplaining comments than he and other guys do) because she called people out for mansplaining on her personal twitter account.
I think this is a really good article that describes differences in communication models: https://status451.com/2016/01/06/splain-it-to-me/amp/ It's dated from early 2016, but it's eerily relevant...
I worked at a fortune 50 in NY, and the first thing they told us is that anything we say or do on a social media account that ties us to the firm will be interpreted as representing the views of...
I worked at a fortune 50 in NY, and the first thing they told us is that anything we say or do on a social media account that ties us to the firm will be interpreted as representing the views of the firm, even if we didn't mean it to. The clear implication was that if we do anything controversial and the company finds out we're fired. Doesn't matter if it's justified or not. Like it or not, that's the world we live in now, notwithstanding the fact that her behavior definitely reflected badly on the company.
This is the world we must destroy, so that we might build a better one in its place. I disagree. I don't judge companies by what their employees do off the job, because I won't tolerate such...
Like it or not, that's the world we live in now
This is the world we must destroy, so that we might build a better one in its place.
notwithstanding the fact that her behavior definitely reflected badly on the company
I disagree. I don't judge companies by what their employees do off the job, because I won't tolerate such judgment of my own off-hours activities.
If a company throws workers under the bus for refusing to allow themselves to bullied or condescended to, that reflects badly on them. I now view ArenaNet with the same contempt I feel for Google, Microsoft, Facebook, AT&T, and Comcast.
Her profile mentions that she worked for ArenaNet, but it also says she "won't be demure for you". I think the latter is a pretty good sign that she isn't speaking for anybody but herself from...
but was the social media account that she posted from associated with ArenaNet at all? Like, did it have any ArenaNet branding or mention that she was an employee there?
Her profile mentions that she worked for ArenaNet, but it also says she "won't be demure for you". I think the latter is a pretty good sign that she isn't speaking for anybody but herself from that account.
I disagree. I think they should have stood behind Ms. Price, because she was right to call out the asshole who thought he had a right to explain shit to her that she already knows because she does...
I'd say ArenaNet is in the right here.
I disagree. I think they should have stood behind Ms. Price, because she was right to call out the asshole who thought he had a right to explain shit to her that she already knows because she does it for a living just because he's a customer. I would not tolerate such treatment if I were in Ms. Price's place. Why should she?
Because a bunch of nerds who weren't bullied enough in middle school used Reddit to put pressure on her employer? Screw that. ArenaNet should have been as loyal to Ms. Price as they expected Ms. Price to be to the company.
Except, her fight was with a fan's thoughts on how a videogame could be improved. Responding with such hostility to feedback on your game is a good way to get fans to move on. This whole debacle...
Except, her fight was with a fan's thoughts on how a videogame could be improved. Responding with such hostility to feedback on your game is a good way to get fans to move on. This whole debacle reminds me of that EA developer who called angry fans armchair developers. He was heavily criticized for alienating the fan base and Price went even further than him by accusing anyone criticizing her of sexism.
As both a developer and an author, I think that consumers of creative work who don't like the way creators go about creating should treat themselves to a nice tall glass of ice-cold shut the fuck...
As both a developer and an author, I think that consumers of creative work who don't like the way creators go about creating should treat themselves to a nice tall glass of ice-cold shut the fuck up.
If you don't like what creators are selling, save your money. If you think you can do better, prove it by creating something yourself.
He was heavily criticized for alienating the fan base
Nevertheless, he was right.
Price went even further than him by accusing anyone criticizing her of sexism.
Considering that most of the people criticizing her appear to be men, I wouldn't be surprised if it was sexism.
If creators can't stand to hear ideas from people, they should stay inside and drink their own glass. The second you start a conversation on a public forum, but react that strongly to any...
If creators can't stand to hear ideas from people, they should stay inside and drink their own glass. The second you start a conversation on a public forum, but react that strongly to any disagreement with what you're saying, you've shown you're unfit to be seen or heard. You can't have it both ways.
I don't need to be a chef to know when something is overcooked, and I don't need to be a mechanic to know my car won't start.
Polygon had an interview with her yesterday with some more info as well: https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/9/17549492/arenanet-jessica-price-guild-wars-2-writer-fired
I've had a few different company's spell out in detail how personal social media should reflect the company - but it wasn't very oppressive, more just brand management rather than brand promotion....
I've had a few different company's spell out in detail how personal social media should reflect the company - but it wasn't very oppressive, more just brand management rather than brand promotion. It was essentially "Please do not post about work issues, bring concerns to management\HR\etc and don't post about internal company communications particularly about fiscal issues" ... they were definitely trying to control the brand and stock value, but it didn't feel like it was an unfair ask.
Of course, while working for Anheuser Busch, it was suggested to order Bud products at lunch in order to help foster the 'beer at lunch' trend and to make that beer a Bud (including ways to pay for other people's beer if they ordered Bud) and we were IT jockeys, not marketing department hustlers. So employees being asked to promote a brand\company in personal life isn't really a new thing. Being suggested to order beer was inline with what I wanted to do anyways so it was definitely not an onerous request.
I will say that the feeling of being a proud employee of a company brand has dwindled over the years so I think it's harder to make an ask of the employee of something that they don't feel is returned in kind anymore.
Thank god, now I don't have to read a twitter thread. I always it impossible to find context on twitter. Edit: the thought of something like this happening to me is one of my worst nightmares....
Thank god, now I don't have to read a twitter thread. I always it impossible to find context on twitter.
Edit: the thought of something like this happening to me is one of my worst nightmares. Computers were a mistake.
That's a good apology. To be fair to Blair, I believe it could have been just fun, but unfortunately, she has no control over the audience and how they choose to participate.
That's a good apology.
To be fair to Blair, I believe it could have been just fun, but unfortunately, she has no control over the audience and how they choose to participate.
I believe she simply didn't realize the implications and consequences of what she was doing, which makes the ideas in this piece so much more powerful. We can all be acting in (what we think is)...
I believe she simply didn't realize the implications and consequences of what she was doing, which makes the ideas in this piece so much more powerful. We can all be acting in (what we think is) good faith and still ruin someone's privacy.
Definitely a very interesting article, especially given the growing articles about people making racists comments and then losing their jobs. I don't believe it's fair to jeopardize someone's...
Definitely a very interesting article, especially given the growing articles about people making racists comments and then losing their jobs.
I don't believe it's fair to jeopardize someone's livelihood over something that happens in their private hours. Don't get me wrong, if a judge or someone in power makes inappropriate comments that's another thing.
Never speak without understanding your audience first. This article is about "accidental" fame and how being in the limelight brings out the crazies, the jerks, and the losers in their basements....
Never speak without understanding your audience first.
This article is about "accidental" fame and how being in the limelight brings out the crazies, the jerks, and the losers in their basements.
I think the two are very different albeit both symptoms of the same problem.
Privacy nowadays is so hard. I may have locked down my browsers, not have an online presence, and try to fly under the radar...but I can’t control what others post.
Privacy nowadays is so hard. I may have locked down my browsers, not have an online presence, and try to fly under the radar...but I can’t control what others post.
And then you happen to touch hands with a stranger on an airplane. It's one thing for narcissists to knowingly splash their private lives online, it's another for non-celebrities to just go about...
And then you happen to touch hands with a stranger on an airplane. It's one thing for narcissists to knowingly splash their private lives online, it's another for non-celebrities to just go about their business without living in an inescapable Truman Show. One wrong move - yell at your kid in public, trip on a (real or metaphorical) banana skin, and you're now a meme and permanent subject of hatred or ridicule. Celebrities have always had this but they knew the bargain they were getting into and at least had their private mansions and bodyguards and island retreats.
Maybe the only answer is to go after Twitter, Instagram, and all these other centralized sites and shut them down outright or slap them with gag laws that prevent the sharing of images and video of private individuals without the express concent of those involved. A lot of baby would be thrown out with the dirty bathwater, but perhaps that might be better for society as a whole.
I wonder what criteria Twitter uses for verifying accounts... I have 35k followers and lots of Twitter imposters trying to scam under my name, yet Twitter decided I'm not eligible.
My Twitter account is verified but I have less than 20,000 followers.
I wonder what criteria Twitter uses for verifying accounts... I have 35k followers and lots of Twitter imposters trying to scam under my name, yet Twitter decided I'm not eligible.
This is another good article from last year on a very similar topic that I like: We Live in Fear of the Online Mobs. I really like the "forager band" comparison she makes in it:
This is why on the Internet, anonymity and pseudonyms are important and the idea that, like in the story "True Names", it is important to keep your identity, your true name, private. You can say things and then just leave them behind later on. You can change your mind without someone bugging you years later about that stupid idea you had ages ago. I don't like being associated with my idiot younger self's views on anime (hated it, and now actually enjoy it).
Of course the flipside is that idiots and hate-speech-spewing assholes can also hide behind anonymity. Maybe having one internet is a bad idea, maybe the excessive push to have people associate themselves with their real identity on the internet is a terrible idea? It's opened up the tracking of people by marketers associating their real life purchases with online purchases, and it's opened up people to being doxxxed.
Internet fame is the Terminator. It feels no fear, no pity, no pain. And it won't stop, ever. Until you are dead.
This is especially relevant in the wake of ArenaNet throwing Jessica Price under the bus because she had the temerity to call out a "fan" for presuming to explain to her something she's spent years doing for a living.
It's also personally relevant; as an independent novelist I'm expected to be available on social media to promote my own work, but that also means opening myself to abuse. I'm not interested in being a public figure. I just want to write some fun stories, publish them, and see them read, goddammit. I'm not interested in doing the emotional labor that comes with being a "public figure".
Furthermore, I occasionally get pressure from my day job to "represent the company", and I keep telling them that mine is not a customer-facing role, and I do not talk about my day job on social media for my own protection, the company's protection, and that of the company's clients.
Off-topic, but I'm still mad for her and really hopes she sues or something.
Shit like this is why tech workers need to go Wobbly.
I contacted the local Wobblies and spoke to the rep a bit and then nothing. Same with other unions. They aren't organizationally equipped to deal with tech workers or any influx of them who want to donate or build tools.
It's strange because on the free/open source side, we're well-equipped to handle influxes of helpers and volunteers. There's always documentation and unit tests to write or manual testing or evangelizing and writing tutorials that can be done. In the simplest case, donate some cash to pay for servers.
I'm hoping the Pursuance project closes this gap and makes it easier for Wobbly-like orgs to get better organized.
This is a shame, because organizing to fight back against abuses by corporations is an area where we techies don't really have a lot of experience and could use some help from people who have been in the trenches.
Definitely veering off-topic here: I did a bit of digging into this after I mentioned this issue, and as it turns out, the Kotaku article reporting on the fiasco skewed it to sound like it was an attack on being a female working in games (go figure, Kotaku journalism).
This is the exchange between Jessica Price and Deroir:
https://twitter.com/Delafina777/status/1014554296107483136
Apparently, Jessica Price has a history of being fairly unfiltered on social media, and she maintains that this should be her personal space to be however she wants, without ties back to ArenaNet.
Which should not be a firing offense.
I agree with her.
Was ArenaNet paying her to be on Twitter to represent them in the social space? Was that part of her job description? No. That was something extra that ArenaNet was happy to take advantage of until a bunch of over-entitled nerds got pissy because she told one of them off for being presumptuous.
As far as I'm concerned, Deroir and his supports can go bugger themselves with rusty broadswords. If they think it's OK to bully somebody who isn't a government official over a tweet and threaten their livelihood, then it's obvious that they themselves weren't bullied enough as children because they have no idea what it's like to be afraid.
I honestly don't think the person responding to her was being entitled, and if you read the thread, you'd see that Deroir was being quite reasonable and didn't want trouble.
If she wants to be unfiltered on social media, that's her prerogative, but she was speaking specifically about working on GW2, which invites discussion on the specific problem she was addressing. I believe the response to her original thread was an honest attempt at discussion and asking for insight, and that it wasn't fair for her to make this out to be an attack on females working in the games industry.
I'm not taking sides on if what she did was considered a fireable offense or not (though that is the actual topic this post was addressing). I am troubled at how this issue has been spun as gamegate2.0.
Maybe not, but you know what? Trouble was what he caused. Deroir might have expected Ms. Stern to read his "reasonable question" as yet another attempt by some random dude to "mansplain" with a modicum of imagination and forethought.
The problem with playing games like "Poke the Bear" is that the bear doesn't give a shit that you think it's just a game.
Jessica Stern is the bear. Her profile specifically says, "Salty. Won't play demure for you." Sure, the smart thing to her to do would have been to mute Deroir, ignore his tweet, and move the hell on -- but that's easy for me to suggest because I've got a cock and balls and I don't have to worry about legions of randos jumping up my asshole every time I express an opinion on the godforsaken internet.
We've got a bunch of assholes on a web forum getting worked up because a woman told off a guy on the internet, demanding that she be deprived of her livelihood, but you're troubled that people are drawing parallels between this and GamerGate?
Blocking is an option as is hosting the article on their own platform. It's perfectly fine to delete comments on your own blog.
A bunch of wrongs here do not make a right. It's wrong for gamers or fellow game devs to think it's okay to essentially snitch and dox someone. It's wrong for ArenaNet to fire this employee. It's also wrong for us not to have a union.
In my experience, blocking makes things worse because Twitter will tell you that you've been blocked, thus allowing you to retaliate by creating an alt account. However, Twitter won't tell you when you've been muted.
Sure it is, but who goes to websites these days?
Better to not have comments at all. If somebody wants to have a say, they can damned well quote and link on their own blog.
His wording was polite, but he was pretty rude by acting like an authority when he isn't, and in a conversation with an actual authority, no less. And after she called him out (not rudely, either - her first post was really tame), he acted indignant and was very much like 'I just wanted a discussion omg'. Even his later tweets about not wanting any part of it were dodgy, he goes to a lot of trouble to absolve himself of any wrongdoing with a very 'I would never' tone but that's pretty much it. Maybe it's just me, but being reasonable and not wanting trouble usually manifests a bit differently.
And it's 'spun' as gg2 because there is a woman who was shat on by keyboard warriors and fired from her job (along with a male coworker who basically just said that women indeed get way more condescending/mansplaining comments than he and other guys do) because she called people out for mansplaining on her personal twitter account.
I think this is a really good article that describes differences in communication models: https://status451.com/2016/01/06/splain-it-to-me/amp/
It's dated from early 2016, but it's eerily relevant to this specific event.
I worked at a fortune 50 in NY, and the first thing they told us is that anything we say or do on a social media account that ties us to the firm will be interpreted as representing the views of the firm, even if we didn't mean it to. The clear implication was that if we do anything controversial and the company finds out we're fired. Doesn't matter if it's justified or not. Like it or not, that's the world we live in now, notwithstanding the fact that her behavior definitely reflected badly on the company.
This is the world we must destroy, so that we might build a better one in its place.
I disagree. I don't judge companies by what their employees do off the job, because I won't tolerate such judgment of my own off-hours activities.
If a company throws workers under the bus for refusing to allow themselves to bullied or condescended to, that reflects badly on them. I now view ArenaNet with the same contempt I feel for Google, Microsoft, Facebook, AT&T, and Comcast.
Her profile mentions that she worked for ArenaNet, but it also says she "won't be demure for you". I think the latter is a pretty good sign that she isn't speaking for anybody but herself from that account.
I disagree. I think they should have stood behind Ms. Price, because she was right to call out the asshole who thought he had a right to explain shit to her that she already knows because she does it for a living just because he's a customer. I would not tolerate such treatment if I were in Ms. Price's place. Why should she?
Because a bunch of nerds who weren't bullied enough in middle school used Reddit to put pressure on her employer? Screw that. ArenaNet should have been as loyal to Ms. Price as they expected Ms. Price to be to the company.
Except, her fight was with a fan's thoughts on how a videogame could be improved. Responding with such hostility to feedback on your game is a good way to get fans to move on. This whole debacle reminds me of that EA developer who called angry fans armchair developers. He was heavily criticized for alienating the fan base and Price went even further than him by accusing anyone criticizing her of sexism.
As both a developer and an author, I think that consumers of creative work who don't like the way creators go about creating should treat themselves to a nice tall glass of ice-cold shut the fuck up.
If you don't like what creators are selling, save your money. If you think you can do better, prove it by creating something yourself.
Nevertheless, he was right.
Considering that most of the people criticizing her appear to be men, I wouldn't be surprised if it was sexism.
If creators can't stand to hear ideas from people, they should stay inside and drink their own glass. The second you start a conversation on a public forum, but react that strongly to any disagreement with what you're saying, you've shown you're unfit to be seen or heard. You can't have it both ways.
I don't need to be a chef to know when something is overcooked, and I don't need to be a mechanic to know my car won't start.
Polygon had an interview with her yesterday with some more info as well: https://www.polygon.com/2018/7/9/17549492/arenanet-jessica-price-guild-wars-2-writer-fired
I am actually really disappointed to learn this. Honestly, reporting like this ultimately hurts the cause.
I've had a few different company's spell out in detail how personal social media should reflect the company - but it wasn't very oppressive, more just brand management rather than brand promotion. It was essentially "Please do not post about work issues, bring concerns to management\HR\etc and don't post about internal company communications particularly about fiscal issues" ... they were definitely trying to control the brand and stock value, but it didn't feel like it was an unfair ask.
Of course, while working for Anheuser Busch, it was suggested to order Bud products at lunch in order to help foster the 'beer at lunch' trend and to make that beer a Bud (including ways to pay for other people's beer if they ordered Bud) and we were IT jockeys, not marketing department hustlers. So employees being asked to promote a brand\company in personal life isn't really a new thing. Being suggested to order beer was inline with what I wanted to do anyways so it was definitely not an onerous request.
I will say that the feeling of being a proud employee of a company brand has dwindled over the years so I think it's harder to make an ask of the employee of something that they don't feel is returned in kind anymore.
Follow-up on the main story cited in the article: Rosey Blair posted an apology on Twitter.
The Atlantic had an article about that story yesterday as well: Stop Live-Tweeting Strangers Flirting
Thank god, now I don't have to read a twitter thread. I always it impossible to find context on twitter.
Edit: the thought of something like this happening to me is one of my worst nightmares. Computers were a mistake.
That's a good apology.
To be fair to Blair, I believe it could have been just fun, but unfortunately, she has no control over the audience and how they choose to participate.
I believe she simply didn't realize the implications and consequences of what she was doing, which makes the ideas in this piece so much more powerful. We can all be acting in (what we think is) good faith and still ruin someone's privacy.
I believe that too. Privacy is definitely becoming harder to protect.
Definitely a very interesting article, especially given the growing articles about people making racists comments and then losing their jobs.
I don't believe it's fair to jeopardize someone's livelihood over something that happens in their private hours. Don't get me wrong, if a judge or someone in power makes inappropriate comments that's another thing.
Never speak without understanding your audience first.
This article is about "accidental" fame and how being in the limelight brings out the crazies, the jerks, and the losers in their basements.
I think the two are very different albeit both symptoms of the same problem.
It is very hard to know your audience online, particularly when it can grow or shift in an instant.
Even before that, it is covert.
Your audience online when you're representing a company is one that will turn on you in an instant. You should never be hostile towards them.
Privacy nowadays is so hard. I may have locked down my browsers, not have an online presence, and try to fly under the radar...but I can’t control what others post.
Do you realise where you are? :P
And then you happen to touch hands with a stranger on an airplane. It's one thing for narcissists to knowingly splash their private lives online, it's another for non-celebrities to just go about their business without living in an inescapable Truman Show. One wrong move - yell at your kid in public, trip on a (real or metaphorical) banana skin, and you're now a meme and permanent subject of hatred or ridicule. Celebrities have always had this but they knew the bargain they were getting into and at least had their private mansions and bodyguards and island retreats.
Maybe the only answer is to go after Twitter, Instagram, and all these other centralized sites and shut them down outright or slap them with gag laws that prevent the sharing of images and video of private individuals without the express concent of those involved. A lot of baby would be thrown out with the dirty bathwater, but perhaps that might be better for society as a whole.
I wonder what criteria Twitter uses for verifying accounts... I have 35k followers and lots of Twitter imposters trying to scam under my name, yet Twitter decided I'm not eligible.
Theoretically, their stated criteria is that your account needs to be of public interest (though I bet that's enforced rather haphazardly).
This may interest you: https://mashable.com/2017/09/01/instagram-verification-paid-black-market-facebook/?europe=true