Comments on: How Mother Jones Set Me Up for Harassment

By: Stephanie Zvan

Stephanie Zvan — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 03:43:32 +0000

In reply to r davis. r davis, I'm an atheist who gets harassed by other atheists because I led the push for anti-harassment policies at our conferences. I also get harassed because I don't let those atheists get away with harassing my feminist friends, also atheists, without consequences. Additionally, you might just want to read my bio and consider the name of the network on which you're commenting.

By: r davis

r davis — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 01:41:37 +0000

I was on board until you felt the need to throw in the atheist dig, Stephanie. Thanks for showing that you too are bigot. We atheists are not catagorically a people who harass as your comment implies any more than all racists in America are people of faith, though some are. The ‘circles’ I mix in online are those of intelligent caring people who strive to improve both themselves and the world we live in. Smearing an entire philosophy based on the actions of one person? THAT is an amateur move.

By: Links: 06/13/14 — The Radish.

Links: 06/13/14 — The Radish. — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 14:31:40 +0000

[…] How Mother Jones Set Me Up for Harassment […]

By: Pierce R. Butler

Pierce R. Butler — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:50:57 +0000

Twitter: 24/365 invitation to miscommunication.

By: surreptitious46

surreptitious46 — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 06:02:41 +0000

I agree with the general principle of not negatively labelling those that society finds offensive whoever they may be. But I think it more simple than your explanation. Using such labels creates a mental distinction between those that are given them and those are not. It amuses me sometimes when animal is used as a term of abuse when that is actually what we all are anyway. But the intention is the same and that is to distinguish those who commit certain acts from those that do not. This is rather disingenuous because as human beings we are all perfectly capable of the very same things that we condemn others for. The only difference is that most of us do not actually do them but that is not to suggest however that we do not have the potential to do so

By: jesse

jesse — Tue, 10 Jun 2014 12:53:20 +0000

Stephanie–
per Tim Farley’s bit, the problem is that it’s one of those “features” that you have to be pretty hip to the way the tech is set up to control reliably. I know that most people don’t look that carefully at meta tags and until I read his post I was unaware they even existed in that way.

So yes, you are quite right to be trés annoyed.

There’s a whole other issue of media and being forced to click-bait (I’ve worked at places where the need for traffic outweighed a lot of other things). But that’s a whole other discussion.

By: Stephanie Zvan

Stephanie Zvan — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 14:35:39 +0000

In reply to Tim Farley. Tim, any failure of mine in that action was in trusting MoJo when they weren't deserving of trust. I had just looked at the headline as it stood on the page. I trusted them to use that same headline in the tweet, as is the standard among publications from blogs to news outlets. I didn't look at that part of the tweet. I am now less trusting, and this is a post, in part, so that others know their trust isn't warranted.

By: Tim Farley

Tim Farley — Mon, 09 Jun 2014 13:15:22 +0000

For those wondering, there are “meta” tags in a web page that control this behavior, here are the tags on that article that cause it to be sent to social media with the different title, I’ve changed the braces here:

[meta property=”og:title” content=”It’s official: Men are pigs”/]
[meta property=”twitter:title” content=”It’s official: Men are pigs”/]

But wait a second, Stephanie, I have to call you to task a bit here. As per Twitter guidelines, the Tweet button on Mother Jones presents a prompt in a window with the proposed tweet and with the offending text highlighted!. You admit you removed their name from this box before pressing the Tweet button, did you not look at the rest of the box?

Your post is worded as if Mother Jones totally surprised you with this wording when in fact they presented it to you for your approval.

By: G Pierce (Was ~G~)

G Pierce (Was ~G~) — Sun, 08 Jun 2014 23:38:01 +0000

I first found this article through your FB and thought the pigs comment was a little weird. When I went to share it I noticed it was popping up as the article title even though when I read the article, the title was different. So I opened in my browser and shared from there and the correct title popped up. Otherwise, I didn’t want to share with that title. I’m glad you explained this.

As for MJ- I was a long time subscriber long ago but quit due in part to the sensationalism used. In addition, they print some pseudoscientific scare junk. The first anti-vaccine article I ever read was in there long ago. I keep getting requests in the mail to join but they keep highlighting some article on how veggie burgers are toxic or some shit. A shame since a lot of their info is great, but I always feel the need to double check because of their appeals to shock value.

By: F [i'm not here, i'm gone]

F [i'm not here, i'm gone] — Sun, 08 Jun 2014 19:10:38 +0000

How incredibly stupid is that? If they are making a shift from being factual, rational, and dare I say liberal, to simply marketing to the rational, liberal, fact-orientated population, I think that is sad. I’ve seen this “sensationalism in a title” (including complete misrepresentation of facts in a title) destroy too many outlets/platforms in my time. Oh, they are still there, they just suck a lot.