Originally Posted by endsormeans

Honestly ...
If a person is responsible and posting responsibly...
then where is the harm? where is the foul?
tracing back to a real world name so someone can get in trouble with their employer?
Well unless said person is slagging their employer somehow...
or they are playing hookey from work to post..
or the said person is spewwing hate of some kind...
then the employer has no grounds for firing anyone ...period.

Honestly...by your reasoning szop .. browsing...let alone shopping for marital toys online ...let alone just surfing anything potentially controversial even accidentally can net you the desired firing from your employer ...if anyone scopes you who has it in for you...hell they can fabricate whatever they need to....
So technically every last person on this planet is in just the same threat daily...

Since her ascendance to minor notoriety, Harper has become known for her abusive tactics and for misrepresentations of her critics.
[...]
Roberto Rosario is a 29-year veteran of software development and former head of Puerto Rico’s chapter of the International Games Development Association (IGDA). His crime, in Randi Harper’s eyes, was following the wrong people on Twitter.

Harper’s claim to fame is a Perl script called the “GGautoblocker”, which she says is a tool to automatically block “internet harassers” and “misogynists” on Twitter. But peer-reviewed research (*) commissioned by the feminist organisation Women, Action and Media found that just 0.66 per cent (65) of the 9,844 Twitter accounts on the list can be classified as “harassers.”

[...] If you follow the wrong people, you are automatically added to the list, regardless of what you, personally, have done.

This is what happened to Roberto Rosario, one the most prominent figures in Puerto Rico’s tech community. Describing Harper’s list as “the most idiotic algorithm I’ve seen,” Rosario pointed out that preemptively accusing people of harassment and misogyny on the basis of their associations was “nonsense.”
[...]
Harper made no effort to clear Rosario’s name, stating instead that if Roberto “didn’t want to be labelled a creep, he shouldn’t attack women’s credibility,” and refused to remove his name from the list.

What followed was a relentless campaign of abuse against the software developer. Since criticising Harper, Rosario says he has been “harassed and threatened on the web daily” because of people who “didn’t know him and assumed he was a misogynist,” thanks to his inclusion on Harper’s list.

Needless to say, far from being a misogynist, Rosario is a sponsor of IncludeGirls, a group that aims to improve gender representation in tech. Such details didn’t matter to Harper or his other abusers.
[...]
Rosario’s career was also targeted, and he states he was even blacklisted from speaking at certain events. He was eventually cowed into silence, and no longer issues public comment on Harper’s blocklist or related issues.

Throughout these happenings, Harper, the “online abuse prevention activist,” did nothing to assist Rosario. His name remains on her blocklist.

Chris von Csefalvay

Chris von Csefalvay is a data scientist living in Oxford. He is a fellow of both the Royal Society of Arts and the Royal Statistical Society, with degrees from the Universities of Oxford and Cardiff. He is currently chief data scientist to a FTSE 100 company.
[...]
Csefalvay first became a target of Harper after he published a network analysis indicating that GamerGate, a movement Harper is implacably opposed to, did not fit the characteristics of an “online hate campaign.”

During a Twitter exchange with Csefalvay, Harper accused the data scientist of employing a “dismissive tone.” Csefalvay clarified his position, stating that dismisiveness was not his intention and that “the more people interested in [the topic of gamergate], the better.”

Harper did not accept his apology. Accusing Csefalvay of being a “fake data scientist,” she urged her followers to explain to him why he “isn’t just a sexist tool, but an entire sexist home depot.” Naturally, she also added him to her autoblocker.
[...]
Csefalvay says Harper is an “obsessive” and that she continues to keep tabs on his tweets despite the fact that he wants nothing more to do with her.

“She likes hitting the vulnerable points of people,” says Csefalvay. “Her most recent attacks on me were on the day I was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.”

Harper would continue to call out Csefalvay for several months, as a campaign of abuse against the data scientist escalated. “Once [Harper] got involved, things got particularly vile”, said Csefalvay, speaking to gaming blogger Stephanie Greene. “That’s when it got into the realm of of very graphic and very shockingly violent threats.”

In January, Csefalvay announced he was retiring from the online debate, after anonymous death and rape threats were made against his wife.

Claire Schumann

[...]
Like Harper, Schumann was an opponent of the GamerGate movement, and spent “months” in polite conversation with Brianna Wu, another opponent of the movement. Wu described her as “very polite.”

But Schumann began having second thoughts, opting to conduct an “Ask me Anything” session on GamerGate and anti-GamerGate communities on Reddit, in order to find common ground.

This attracted the attention of Harper, who accused Schumann of being a “gamergate sockpuppet” playing “psychological games.” Although she didn’t have to, Schumann apologised, and said she would stop commenting on the controversy.

This wasn’t enough for Harper. “You’ve made your Gamergate bed, now get ****ed in it,” Harper wrote. Schumann ended up being driven to tears by the blue-haired anti-abuse activist.

Vivek Wadhwa

[...]
For a long time, Wadhwa was also one of the leading advocates for diversity in technology. But he recently made the decision to end his advocacy on the issue, labelling the debate “toxic.” He made his decision after he was targeted by an online harassment campaign — one which Randi Harper was intimately involved with.

Wadhwa’s tireless advocacy for women and minorities in tech wasn’t enough for some feminists. In February, the blogger Amelia Greenhall kicked off a campaign against him with a blog post accusing him of hogging the limelight and employing a condescending tone. (No, really.)
[...]
The blog post cited Randi Harper, who just a few days earlier had accused Wadhwa of being a “profiteering pseudo-ally,” before going on a long rant explaining her theory of how Wadhwa’s commitment to diversity was insincere.

Naturally, the anti-abuse activist also descended to the level of personal abuse. “**** everything about this guy,” she added. When someone tried to stick up for Wadhwa, her response was, “Go set yourself on fire.”

It didn’t end there. Wadhwa’s Wikipedia and Amazon pages were targeted by a mob of his opponents, eager to ruin his reputation. Both websites are consulted regularly by members of the public and the press and, rightly or wrongly, what’s written there is taken seriously
[...]
Harper would eventually receive a comeuppance of sorts, after a group that monitors Amazon review trolling outed her(**) as a bully(***). They later received support from world-famous author Anne Rice

Originally Posted by szopin

Or lets bring some background on the new face of the internet activism...

Originally Posted by MINKIN2

You do realize that by posting this here, you are running the risk of enticing this person and their followers to our little corner of the internet?

With TMO's diminishing community along with the ongoing drives to keep the lights on and trademarks, do we really want to bring any attention that can jeopardise the efforts of the council and supporting members alike?

“@greg_a_elliott Please do me a favour & not reply to my posts. You don’t follow me- were you creeping the #TOpoli tag to find my tweet?” she tweeted on Aug. 9, 2012.

“.@ladysnarksalot how’d you feel if I was so delusional to ask you to not retweet me? You want “control” use your email, not Twitter. #TOpoli,” @greg_a_elliott replied, after suggesting that Reilly didn’t understand the point of Twitter.

[...]
The exchanges became increasingly hostile that month, with @greg_a_elliott tweeting that Reilly was a “hateful b–tch” and accusing her and other women he dubbed “#fascistfeminists” of ganging up on him, Reilly said.

He also posted tweets like “Heather’s fat *** gets fatter” with the #topoli hashtag but without mentioning her Twitter handle in the tweet (known as subtweeting), the court heard. Subtweeting meaning the other Twitter user mentioned won’t be automatically notified that he or she is being discussed.

It was on Sept. 11 when Reilly began to be concerned for her safety, she testified. She and a group of friends met at a west-end bar and were tweeting about their evening, she testified.

“A whole lot of ugly at the Cadillac Lounge tonight,” @greg_a_elliott tweeted. The tweet made her fear that Elliott was at the same bar and search the room to make sure he was not, she said.

Her concerns “escalated from name-calling to that he could do physical harm to me,” she said. (Elliott is not accused of threatening any of the complainants.)

Two weeks later @greg_a_elliott replied to a tweet she sent related to the Toronto International Film Festival and it was the last straw, she said.

She reported the @greg_a_elliott account to Twitter, but they offered no assistance. She went to the police after seeing Elliott was charged with criminally harassing Stephanie Guthrie, she said.

“Not everyone on the Internet is going to be your friend and wants to be your friend,” said Reilly, acknowledging that Twitter is a publicly available forum. “There are people out there who just want to stir up a reaction.”

But she testified that Elliott’s tone and repeated and deliberate involvement of her in Twitter fights crossed a line. “I didn’t appreciate the attacks I felt I received,” she told the court.

Elliott’s lawyer has argued that the three complainants in the case conspired to gang up on Elliott, and were in fact the ones who were bullying Elliott.

Originally Posted by szopin

legality of ]'we redefine community... - referendum'

Originally Posted by szopin

...to fix inherent problem with rules we set up...

Originally Posted by szopin

...expecting every member to be forever

Originally Posted by Win7Mac

Frankly, to me, you're a pita in the community topics...

Originally Posted by szopin

People interact with different communities, GA being real world names is a deal breaker for me.

Originally Posted by Win7Mac

There would be no legality whatsoever (incl. not being able to sign contracts) with just a bunch of people being agregated in an "Interessengemeinschaft". Are you suggesting anarchy?


right


What... where you took that from? - Only diamonds are forever.

I guess this thread shows exactly what I meant when I said:


You could still play havoc with other forums while this one probably would be somewhat neglected then, I guess... Considering your other posts, you probably should check out blog.transparency.org.

Love your ambitions but can't find a reasonable ground.

Originally Posted by szopin

You wannabe politicians...