March 27, 2007

the blog post I hoped I’d never have to write…

What hap­pe­ned to Kathy Sie­rra, an utterly glo­wing gem in the blo­gosphere, and a really good buddy to me over the years, utterly horri­fied me.
Rachel Clarke sums it up well:

What the fuck is going on? Why does this hap­pen again and again. The only peo­ple I know (in real life or vir­tually) who have been threa­te­ned and stal­ked have been women. What inse­cure, small min­ded­ness, misogy­nis­tic beha­viour takes over peo­ple to do things like this. Over 50% of the blo­gosphere are women, yet we con­ti­nually get the refrain that they are not A-list, that they are not spea­king at con­fe­ren­ces. This is why. Put your­self out there, show that there is no dif­fe­rence and you get the anger and vitriol poring out from peo­ple from peo­ple who think they are bet­ter just because they have a Y chromosome.

This is why I have no trou­ble wha­tsoe­ver dele­ting anony­mous com­ments, at least, the mean-spirited ones. Iden­tity mat­ters. If peo­ple don’t feel the need to be held per­so­nally accoun­ta­ble for their words, if peo­ple don’t feel that what they say or do should bear any real-world con­se­quen­ces, then I don’t want to talk to them.
Here’s hoping Dear Kath is back in the saddle again, soo­ner than later. Kathy, we love you. Rock on.

[Follow the story on Tech­meme.]

[UPDATE:] Robert Sco­ble left the follo­wing com­ment below:

The pro­blem, Hugh, is that some peo­ple invol­ved in meankids.org DO have iden­ti­ties. Let’s start with Chris­topher Locke. He just wrote on his blog in defense of his part in Meankids.org.
But I just saw for the first time what they wrote about Mar­yam. Totally, totally, vile and hurt­ful things. We’re both quite hurt and pis­sed about it.
I demand a public apo­logy from ALL invol­ved.
They cer­tainly are NOT my friends.

Appa­rently these Mean­Kids folk were taking the occa­sio­nal pop at me as well. Mommy! Mommy! Come quick! A posse of middle aged, self-loathing unde­rachie­vers is being mean to me Boo hoo hoo hoo…
[Afterthought:] Highschool Metaphor: “OK, so you weren’t the actual jock who raped the cheer­lea­der. But it seems you were in the posse circ­ling them, chan­ting ‘Go go go go go go go…’ ”
Or am I mis­sing something?

35 Responses to “the blog post I hoped I’d never have to write…”

  1. Antoine says:

    Well said, it’s time peo­ple take off their “inter­net veil”. Cheers.

  2. The pro­blem, Hugh, is that some peo­ple invol­ved in meankids.org DO have iden­ti­ties. Let’s start with Chris­topher Locke. He just wrote on his blog in defense of his part in Meankids.org.
    But I just saw for the first time what they wrote about Mar­yam. Totally, totally, vile and hurt­ful things. We’re both quite hurt and pis­sed about it.
    I demand a public apo­logy from ALL invol­ved.
    They cer­tainly are NOT my friends.

  3. Kimber says:

    Thanks Hugh for pos­ting this and for pos­ting Rachel’s com­ments.
    My heart goes out to Kathy. Big time. And the fact that this beha­vior is sup­por­ted by the industry lea­ders is sha­me­ful.
    This kind of cra­zi­ness is why I blog under pen names and on sites not even owned by myself (having dealt with unplea­sant situa­tions face-to-face, I sus­pec­ted the inter­net would amplify those). I also pre­fer not to have pho­tos of myself floa­ting around the inter­net.
    But as my busi­nes­ses are off-line, I have that luxury. I’m not trying to build brand me on-line.

  4. Rachel says:

    Thanks Hugh. A post made in anger, but I’m still angry. I’ve wor­ked in male domi­na­ted indus­tries all my life, dis­ti­lling and IT, and this beha­viour used to be ‘ok’ in the work place. It’s not any­more, but it’s taken the law as well as change in per­cep­tion; it’s taken a long time and is still ende­mic in some pla­ces. This is bull­ying, something we try hard to pre­vent our chil­dren being sub­ject to at school but see­mingly let it hap­pen on the web, ‘cos this is the inter­net don’t you know, you should grow a thick skin. Why should I?

  5. It seems like they have mana­ged to achieve what they wan­ted to, 1) get atten­tion, 2) stop Kathy from blog­ging.
    Bunch of wankers

  6. Peter Cooper says:

    Appa­rently these Mean­Kids folk were taking the occa­sio­nal pop at me as well. Mommy! Mommy! Come quick! A posse of middle aged, self-loathing unde­rachie­vers is being mean to me Boo hoo hoo hoo…
    True, Hugh, but they don’t have a pic­ture of you cho­king in under­wear ;-)
    Seriously though.. there’s a big dif­fe­rence bet­ween truly biting satire or parody, and hate speech / death threats.

  7. hugh macleod says:

    I totally agree, Peter. Dis­gus­ting busi­ness, all of it.

  8. Dannie Jost says:

    Unfor­tu­nate, and it invi­tes reflection.

  9. Laura says:

    The whole thing is just dread­ful. I do wish Kathy the best and hope that the scum­bags are trac­ked down quickly.
    Some peo­ple in various con­ver­sa­tions have brought up this cul­ture of vio­lence against women being accep­ta­ble. There is a huge pro­blem with society gla­mo­ri­zing vio­lence against women — for exam­ple, America’s Next Top Model just ran a photo spread where all the models were pho­to­graphed as if they had been mur­de­red, grue­so­mely, in some cases. It lea­ves little to the ima­gi­na­tion to won­der where the scum­bags who threa­te­ned Kathy and who threa­ten other women get their ideas. Vio­lence against women is a mains­tream, accep­ta­ble, safe for prime-time tv sub­ject these days. Which is, of course, utterly disgusting.

  10. Doesn’t any­body get these weren’t threats? They were stu­pid, mean, juve­nile and ill-advised, but they weren’t sta­te­ments of inten­tion, they were not plans…
    If you think this is bad, go and look at what is online about any female celeb — do you think they would take the same line of trea­ting pue­rile con­tent as real and direct evi­dence of an attempt at their lives?
    I hope she feels bet­ter soon, but the blo­goshere is going to need to rea­lise that the top 1% of blog­gers are in no way dis­cern­bile from the bot­tom 25% of ‘cele­bri­ties’ out there and they’re going to have to deal with weird crap the same way.
    Should they have to? Of course not — of course society should be bet­ter. The way to fix that though is not to allow the blo­gosphere to be judge and jury over some juve­nile con­tent. We can handle this bet­ter than faux outrage.
    Yes, it’s faux outrage. It’s not real. It’s as insin­cere as you can get. I find it par­ti­cu­larly iro­nic that in one post Sco­ble made the follo­wing two com­ments:
    “We should spend the next week dis­cus­sing how to fix this”
    “I won’t be blog­ging this week. I’ll be back Mon­day”.
    Well, *there* is the way to shape the con­ver­sa­tion and talk about the power of the blog, eh?
    Then of course Hugh, you do the same double-take in one post.
    Top of post: “What hap­pe­ned to Kathy Sie­rra, an utterly glo­wing gem in the blo­gosphere, and a really good buddy to me over the years, utterly horri­fied me.”
    Bot­tom of post: “Mommy! Mommy! Come quick! A posse of middle aged, self-loathing unde­rachie­vers is being mean to me Boo hoo hoo hoo…”
    Do you not see the irony and faux outrage in that?
    I swear, the blo­gosphere has just got either a) really, really drunk and I didn’t notice or b) so far up their own arses they can’t dis­tin­guish rea­lity from their own reflec­tion.
    I feel for any­body who is in fear, and I wish it didn’t hap­pen to a per­son as great as Kathy. The res­ponse though has just been, well, pathetic.

  11. scotty says:

    fuck. seriously, some­days i’m just asha­med to be a human being.

  12. deannie says:

    The one thing of value that Chris Locke wrote in his non apo­lo­ge­tic post is that a YOYOW (You own your own words) ethos is a good gui­ding principle.

  13. Sarah says:

    This whole issue of stal­king, wierd calls and purely sick and twis­ted beha­viour online from indi­vi­duals is unac­cep­ta­ble. If you then add to this the sus­pec­ted iden­tity fraud that also rela­tes to this par­ti­cu­lar case, I would be wary of pos­ting any defa­ma­tory (or even just insul­ting com­ments from anyone)
    I always mode­rate all my com­ments to make sure that on my site nothing of this nature ever gets uploa­ded.
    What is worr­ying is that others a. don’t do the same and b. are actually encou­ra­ging each other into this sort of beha­viour. This in itself assu­mes that it is a valid and accep­ted beha­viour, which as many peo­ple have shown during the course of the day, it is defi­na­tely not accep­ta­ble in any form.
    I for one have had issues with pri­vacy and the inter­net in the past and I know that I am not alone, many others have also felt it to a les­ser degree.
    As a female I try not to hide the fact that I am female but it is through peo­ple doing this sort of thing that fema­les are sca­red of being iden­ti­fied as such and also feel unwel­come at events and in social envi­ron­ments. (mainly because of addi­tio­nal atten­tion being drawn to them being female in a male domi­na­ted industry and the fear attached to this focus on sex. ) It’s quite frankly obsurd and ridi­cu­lous that this should be the case in this day and age, the soo­ner peo­ple start rea­li­sing we are all just human and in essence the same, the bet­ter!
    TBD: How to stop ID theft on Blog Com­men­ting, Bloc­king the Bullies…

  14. Robert says:

    I can­not unders­tand the cha­rac­ter and or wha­te­ver minis­cule per­so­na­lity exists of such a vile man. Man? Sorry, a man would not do this — but that ‘thing’ did. To do what it did is dis­pi­ca­ble and cowardly.
    I do hope the police track it down and jus­tice gets ser­ved up in huge dollops of hard time where I am cer­tain the sho­wers will be an event it will not look for­ward to.

  15. Brian says:

    Or am I mis­sing something?
    I read Locke’s email this a.m. “you own your own words”.
    Which is fine but this is not The Well and this is not 1990. It’s the web and it’s 2007 — a big­ger world needs dif­fe­rent rules.
    It’s like expec­ting the rules that wor­ked on the com­mune to apply on Main Street. They don’t scale.

  16. RKR says:

    To say the least, I am shoc­ked by the above men­tio­ned news.
    Rea­ding your blog intro­du­ced me to Kathy Sierra’s blog, which I thought was quite impres­sive. I read seve­ral of her artic­les and think she is quite a talent.
    I wish Kathy, and any other blog­gers that are the tar­gets of bull­ying, strength and cou­rage to con­ti­nue their work.
    Give ‘em hell, Hugh. What can we do to help?

  17. Hugh. You rock. And my heart goes out to Kathy.
    Seeing as I left high school a very long time ago, and I’ve been living and breathing hap­pily outside the Bub­ble, I don’t con­si­der any of those clowns ‘industry lea­ders’… more like ‘industry ado­les­cents’.
    Haven’t they anything bet­ter to do with our time? ;-)

  18. Vitorio says:

    Just shy of ten years ago, something simi­lar hap­pe­ned in the Quake gaming com­mu­nity. A well-known female pla­yer named Hell­kit­ten star­ted recei­ving “foul, dis­gus­ting, sexually per­ver­ted emails and alte­red ima­ges.”
    In res­ponse, the com­mu­nity star­ted a “green rib­bon cam­paign” to pro­mote res­pon­si­bi­lity and res­pect in free speech. The Inter­net Archive has the details:
    http://web.archive.org/web/19971221081130/grc.quake2.com/frames.html

  19. prlinkbiz says:

    We just went through something simi­lar. This is why all per­so­nal infor­ma­tion should be pro­tec­ted when online. This is why haters should be igno­red. This is why it’s so good that there’s no way around karma.

  20. Joe says:

    It’s really a damn shame that these peo­ple or this per­son can have such an effect on someone’s actions. Don’t let them win! Keep blog­ging. Keep giving pre­sen­tions.
    These are the peo­ple who no one wan­ted to play with in the school yard. They never went to the prom. They want to hide behind their com­pu­ter screens and believe that the net is rea­lity. It’s not.
    In truth, they won’t meet you outside for some real fist-a-cuffs. They would get their asses kic­ked. Now that’s rea­lity. Just some pus­sies hiding in their pixe­la­ted world. Rock on, baby.

  21. Martin Edic says:

    Hugh I think your jock cheer­lea­der metaphor for Locke is dead on– he is hiding behind free speech which iro­ni­cally makes it pos­si­ble for morons like him to make a living.
    There is such a thing as karma and the blog world is quick to apply it.

  22. MarillaAnne says:

    The com­pany we keep …
    Birds of a feather …
    There is nothing new under the sun …
    Exa­mi­ning / clea­ning my library …
    Exa­mi­ning / clea­ning my RSS feed …
    You are right …
    Nothing else to say …

  23. Dis­gus­ting. Ille­gal. Vile.
    That being said, this sort of crap has been going on in main­line media for deca­des. I come from a radio back­ground, and have seen more than my share.
    This inci­dent is less about the “dark side” of blog­ging than its coming of age. Wel­come to the mains­tream, with all its glory and filth.
    And here’s to the pro­se­cu­tion of Kathy’s tormentors.

  24. Hugh, is this the same offen­ding blog you thought was spam (the one I men­tio­ned to you the other day) that was making fun of your post? It has been taken down by Word­press as I write.
    I know of a case of blog­gers in a very strong poli­ti­cal NY blog­ging com­mu­nity where it wasn’t just a woman, but an entire family being threa­te­ned and insul­ted (even their chil­dren being sexually threa­te­ned) by some luna­tic. Unfor­tu­na­tely the same crass­ness and hatred that exists in the “real” world is going to spread like the pla­gue online because it’s har­der to set boun­da­ries. I don’t see anything wrong with set­ting boun­da­ries on one’s own blog and mode­ra­ting com­ments, but unfor­tu­na­tely it’s impos­si­ble to con­trol what spreads out on the inter­net.
    Hugh you did men­tion something in a car­toon about con­tro­lling the con­ver­sa­tion and some con­trol is always neces­sary to keep things from sin­king.
    I don’t know Kathy but I can totally unders­tand her sense of being vio­la­ted and I hope that she will not let this hin­der her blog­ging fore­ver. As a female blog­ger, I’m appa­led on so many levels.
    While it is true that blog­ging can deve­lop a cult of per­so­na­lity peo­ple need to rea­lize we are just wri­ters and human beings like ever­yone else with pri­vate lives and anyone who tries to invade that is an unethi­cal, uncom­pas­sio­nate scum­bag.
    That being said, I also don’t agree that popu­lar or high-ranking blog­gers are like your run of the mill Holly­wood tabloid cele­bri­ties. You know, was Kathy club­bing in LA sho­wing her vay­jay­jay to the came­ras? How many A List Blog­gers are currently in rehab and on the cover of Peo­ple for having ano­re­xia? Still, there is one thing in com­mon: you can be sure that when any cele­brity is threa­te­ned, the police are right on it. And in that way, a threat is a threat no mat­ter who you are.
    Argh.

  25. Eric Strauss says:

    Hugh,
    The blo­gosphere emu­la­tes our society, right? And our society is, plainly put, pretty mes­sed up. So we’ve got a big issue on our hands. It doesn’t mat­ter if peo­ple have to take res­pon­si­bi­lity for their actions, they will still do bad things.
    Remem­ber what hap­pe­ned to Moica Seles in ’93?
    Reac­ting to this inci­dent, my first ins­tinct would be to blog, blog, blog, and tac­kle this pro­blem with con­ver­sa­tion. But that does have a nega­tive exter­na­lity – it empo­wers the cri­mi­nal. It brings their actions into the mains­tream (rela­ti­vely). And this stunt is easily repli­ca­ted. So I would be weary of giving someone any moti­va­tion to do this again.
    But please, Kathy, Hugh, Robert, ever­yone.  – don’t stop blog­ging. Your words have been too valua­ble. We can ‘t afford to lose you on the blo­gosphere or in society.

  26. Kimber says:

    Joe, I didn’t go to the prom either (Yes, I was asked but I was cove­ring gra­dua­tion for a daily and a weekly and had to phone in my columns). Please don’t lump all us non-prom atten­dees together.
    But I would meet you outside for some fist-a-cuffs. Pro­bably kick your butt too.

  27. Michael Neel says:

    Wow.. just wow.
    (as always) I’m 100% out of the loop and catching up after the fact, but somehow I see the day nea­ring where some says “They suf­fer from Inter­net Co-Dependency Blog­ging Disor­der, or ICDB.” If you let others define you it’s never going to go well, digi­tal or other­wise. Besi­des the best way to irri­tate the “Mean Kids” is just to ignore them.
    I won­der what color rib­bon ICDB awa­re­ness will be…

  28. Adam says:

    Whoa. This is scary stuff. I do con­cur with Hugh’s ‘high school jock’ metaphor. Though Locke is correct in poin­ting out he didn’t make the threats, create the graphics, etc, I think he is…
    1) overs­ta­ting the notion that Kathy has pain­ted him as a homi­ci­dal maniac/child moles­ter, and meanwhile pratt­ling on too much about his inno­cence, free speech, etc, to rea­lize how damage he is indi­rectly res­pon­si­ble for.
    2) naive in thin­king that ope­ning a blog encou­ra­ging ‘mean kids’ beha­vior WOULDN’T bring the uns­ta­ble psychos out of the clo­set and into the ether. His ans­wers about the pur­pose of meankids.org and unc­le­bo­bism are curiously vague. What did he think would happen?

  29. Rachel says:

    This is a symp­tom of society itself, not just the blo­gosphere. A lot of the femi­nist blogs (Like Twisty’s I blame the Patriarchy) will the the first to point out that gen­der bias (and espe­cially in terms of vio­lence towards women) is ende­mic.
    You want to try and make the world safer for women? You’ve got a LOT of work to do.
    And quite frankly Shut­ting up and silently doing nothing is not ‘work’.

  30. MyNameIsMatt says:

    …This is beyond absurd. I don’t know where to begin in decons­truc­ting this. First off, it’s cer­tainly a horri­ble thing, and if this truly keeps Kathy away from pos­ting, then we’ve lost one of the best per­sons and resour­ces that the inter­net has to offer.
    The threats in them­sel­ves are terri­ble, and I’ll leave those to the police to handle, but the vei­led sup­port of such acts by Chris Locke and anyone of pro­mi­nence on the inter­net is mind bog­gling. It’s one thing to disa­gree with and dis­like Kathy, or Sco­ble, or Hugh, or anyone else for what they write, and then post that. Howe­ver, it goes to another level when tur­ning such disa­gree­ment into per­so­nal attacks (and an even grea­ter level with death threats).
    Chris Locke’s expla­na­tions are the most ego cen­tric I could ima­gine. It’s all about him, who is not the real vic­tim here. He says that Kathy just com­mit­ted cha­rac­ter assas­si­na­tion on him, but 1) I doubt she really cared one bit about doing such a thing (she only high­ligh­ted that his own web­si­tes sup­por­ted and faci­li­ta­ted her death threats), and 2) it’s his own actions that have allo­wed this event, and in turn he deser­ves what he gets. He tries to hide behind his Rage­Boy name as, “you should expect such from me,” which is not an excuse, and plays off this event as an attack on him. As I wrote already, it’s one thing to disa­gree and write about it, but it’s another thing to faci­li­tate per­so­nal attacks and death threats, and then be com­pli­cit in event.
    This reminds me a little of the recent Chi­quita banana court ruling where the com­pany was pro­tec­ting their wor­kers by paying off desig­na­ted terro­rist orga­ni­za­tions. The DA in clo­sing remar­ked that sup­por­ting terro­rist orga­ni­za­tions is not an accep­ta­ble or jus­ti­fia­ble form of busi­ness, even if it was done to pro­tect wor­kers. The same is true for this event. Faci­li­ta­tion of ille­gal death threats is not an accep­ta­ble method of argu­ment, disa­gree­ment, opi­nion sha­ring, blog­ging, or gene­ral free speech stan­ces. If Chris Locke and others can’t see that, and apo­lo­gize for their roles, then they deserve all the cri­ti­cism and cha­rac­ter assas­si­na­tion they bring on themselves.

  31. Darcy Moen says:

    Perhaps we have just wit­nes­sed the release of ASSHOLE 2.0 We could have wai­ted another 30 to 40 years for THAT upgrade.
    Free speech and free­dom of speech is and always will be a com­pli­ca­ted issue. While free­dom is libe­ra­ting to some, it can also be offen­sive to others, lines of sense and sen­si­bi­li­ties are drawn and cros­sed with each word wrote.
    Rea­ding com­ments made second and third hand is offen­sive enough, I can­not fathom what it must be like to be the reci­pient her­self. More than once I have felt the need to apo­lo­gize for those indi­vi­duals who lack an inter­nal moral com­pass and fail to notice that their words and beha­vior falls far outside social norms.
    The net and blo­gosphere have no offi­cial rules. We are a self poli­cing society where ever­yone is free to swing their arms as much as each and every indi­vi­dual wishes. That said, your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins. Go ahead and say what you want to say, but the rest of us retain the right NOT TO READ the dia­tribe spe­wing forth. We retain the right to self cen­sor.
    Yea though I walk through the valley of the sha­dows of 14 year old boys with sick fan­ta­sies and mediocre pho­toshop skills, I will fear no evil for the delete but­ton and on/off switch com­fort me. The rest of us will lie down in green pas­tu­res of pro­duc­tive thought and cons­truc­tive inte­llec­tual thought.

  32. Heather (a.k.a. Momo) says:

    Hugh,
    I hap­pe­ned across your site some time ago by pure chance. I’d ven­ture to say, I’m not *your* ave­rage rea­der. Des­pite that & the fact that I haven’t yet read the board posts you wrote about, I am all too fami­liar with what you wrote of.
    I belong to one board, a sim­ple board of mothers. We mem­bers are from all over the world, lite­rally. I love dis­cus­sing our simi­la­ri­ties des­pite our dis­tan­ces & cul­tu­ral dif­fe­ren­ces. We are all so very much the same all over this globe.
    But this won­der­ful thing called “the inter­net”, this ama­zing hyped-up TV & typew­ri­ter plug­ged in to my cable that I set in front of every­day, has a draw back. The anony­mity that is nee­ded for basic, common-sense rea­sons is far too easily used to do harm.
    We are all humans behind our screens. Way too many peo­ple for­get that (or just don’t care) and use that anony­mity to do real damage to stran­gers & “loved ones”. I could go on about the many psycho­lo­gi­cal rea­sons as to why but it’s harm­ful nonethe­less. Even if rea­ders & poters have “tough skins”, we still carry those angry words with us through out our day… even those who spew it. It’s a stain on something that could so much very good. Women & men alike from all over the world “let it all out” on the net & that’s a very sad thing to wit­ness.
    I wish your blog­ging friend much hap­pi­ness & a bet­ter tomo­rrow. I truly hope that expe­rience is not one that will truly damage her spi­rit & joy of spea­king to many.
    Take much care,
    Heather

  33. steve says:

    NZ’s still safe, take a holiday…

  34. Wendy says:

    Hugh,
    I have stum­bled across your site com­ple­tely by chance. I am not a famous jour­na­list, wri­ter, or really much of anything to let the truth be known. Blog­ging is my form of ven­ting. Nothing more. To think that someone would make any threats of a fellow blog­ger, regar­less of their sta­tus, is beyond me. I like to be heard, I don’t care if peo­ple disa­gree with my opi­nion, they can tell me so if they like but to make it per­so­nal? That is cros­sing the line.

  35. WriglyB says:

    Hack again?!