Half-Elf on Tech

Thoughts From a Professional Lesbian

Tag: ethics

  • Bummer Of A Birthmark, Hal

    Bummer Of A Birthmark, Hal

    I gave a talk in 2019 at WordCamp NYC about what happens when you’re the target. Anyone in any form of a ‘leadership’ or visible role of authority in any community has had a bad day where they woke up and found out everyone hates them.

    Not that they’re actually doing anything wrong, but people are targeting them for perceived slights. Regardless of right or wrong, all anyone wants is for their phone to stop pinging, their email to calm down, those Facerange and Twooter groups to stop attacking, and maybe everyone could have a beer.

    I have absolutely been there before. For the last decade I’ve worked with the support forums and plugin review teams in myriad roles, including representing those teams to the community. I’ve had a lot of bad days. The good news is I’ve learned that are things you can do to protect yourself and to alleviate the problems.

    It Is/Isn’t Your Fault

    If you’ve been in any sort of leadership or front-facing role, you’ve probably gotten this at least once. Someone has a bad day, maybe they got banned, maybe they got fired, maybe they just failed on their own. Whatever the reason, it’s YOUR fault. They shouted at you, they screamed in person perhaps, and they left you shaking and a little scared about what the heck was going on and what do you do?

    Before I jump into how to protect yourself, which will be the majority of this talk, I want to stress something. No matter what, these situations are not ever entirely your fault. Any time something like this happens, it’s from a breakdown in communication, and that speaks to both sides.

    However. You do have to take some responsibility here for your own actions. If you don’t, you’ll find yourself here again and again, over and over, and that’s really stressful. So when these things happens, yes, reflect on what you did, but also keep in mind you didn’t do this alone.

    Regardless of fault, you have a right to protect yourself. This isn’t an inalienable right. This isn’t a law. This is my firm belief that you have a right to take measures to protect yourself from people who have gone crazy on you. It doesn’t matter if it’s your fault or not, it matters that you should protect yourself.

    What Happened?

    In order to understand how to protect yourself, you need to be aware of what you did. That’s why I said it’s your fault. You did, or you were perceived to have done, something. Keep a hold of that word, perceived, because it matters a great deal. If people think you did a thing, it has the same net effect on their actions, but drastically changes your emotions.

    More than once I’ve woken up to my Twitter mentions and emails filled with people losing their minds about how evil I am. In 2018 it was all about Gutenberg. To be clear, I was accused of deleting bad reviews on the Gutenberg plugin. Since I hadn’t been doing that, it took a lot of stress and reading to figure out why the mob was actually mad at me. In one case, it was a developer who tweeted, at-ing me, complaining it was unfair that Gutenberg had reviews removed, but he couldn’t get his one-star’s removed. That one tweet, for some reason, infuriated the masses and I had DMs and @-messages demanding I explain myself.

    I had to ask myself “Did I actually do this?” Did I actually delete reviews in a way that could cause this reaction? This was false and I knew it, because I had not deleted a single review about Gutenberg. However due to my history as a forum moderator, the finger was pointed at me. Here, what I had done was act as a moderator of some renown at some point in my past.

    Now that I knew what was going on and where it started and that I didn’t do anything, I had to uncover what actually happened. I’m still a forum admin, so I logged in and looked at the posts and I could see who had moderated what. And then I privately pinged those people and asked for details. In talking to the other moderators, I determined that the removal of Gutenberg reviews were valid. The 1-stars were made by sock puppets, which is to say fake accounts made by people to unethically alter a star rating. It happens a lot.

    Now What?

    Okay great, now what? Now it’s time to take action and decide what to do about these people. You have two options though. You can respond to them or … not. They both have a lot of pros and cons, but there is one universal truth you need to know going in: Whatever you chose, to reply or not, you will be wrong.

    There is absolutely no way to ‘win’ or even come out ahead here. You just can’t. If you reply, people will hate your answers. If you don’t, people will claim it’s proof. There’s no safe course here. So you need to make sure you understand why you’re doing this.

    Why You ReplyWhy You Don’t Reply
    Reply if you want to have your say in the matter. That’s it. It doesn’t matter if you’re right or wrong, or if you’re apologizing or not. You’re trying to have your chance to talk. By replying you’re opening up the doors for a discussion. Don’t pick this option if you don’t want to talk to people!Don’t reply if you know it’s a muggs game and you’ll just waste time arguing with people who’ve made up their minds about you. Not replying feels like a safer choice, except it eats at you so much. You’re going to hear people rip into you over and over, and you will have to stick to your guns and not reply.

    And if you’re still not decided, remember that sometimes you can’t reply. That usually happens when you’re aware of a bigger issue that’s preventing public disclosure, or you’ve signed an NDA, or your company asked you not to… Those are really hard because you absolutely cannot engage with people when this happens. You have to suck it up.

    There’s one middle road here. You apologize. This is really hard, though, because no matter how you do it, someone will grab on your word choices and use them as proof one way or the other. Usually it’ll be how they prove you’re terrible.

    It is a good rule in life never to apologize. The right sort of people do not want apologies, and the wrong sort take a mean advantage of them.

    P.G. Wodehouse, The Man Upstairs and Other Stories

    How to Apologize

    I have three rules for how to apologize. Those three rules have served me well, because it reminds me to level-set that no matter what I say, I’m not going to come out ‘ahead’, and I should expect nothing at all in return.

    1. Be respectful
    2. Be sincere
    3. Expect nothing

    There are some things you can be mindful of. Don’t use ‘if’ statements, like “I’m sorry IF this hurt you…” Take ownership of the consequences, regardless of your original intent. It doesn’t matter why a thing happened, it matters that you actually apologize for what happened. You can use “But”, just be mindful that it’s not for making an excuse.

    You still should consider an apology when you’re not the reason for the drama. However this gives you a little room, because now you can use those weasel works. “I’m sorry you feel this way.” Notice the feel part? That should normally be avoided. Here, we want to use it because it’s actually the only thing you can claim auspice over. You acknowledge their emotions as valid. Which they are.

    The follow up to that is you need send them to the right people. “I’m sorry you feel this way. You should talk to X about that. Here’s how…” This is not the equivalent of sending someone to your manager, you’re just getting them to the right people. Oh, but be a mensch and tell the other person what’s incoming.

    And remember: forgiveness is not the point

    I know this is hard to swallow. When you apologize, you never do it in order to be forgiven. Never. Ever.. If you are, then you’re going about it all wrong. You apologize because you hurt someone. It doesn’t matter if you meant to or not, and it doesn’t matter if you can fix it or not. It matters that someone is hurt, and you did it. It’s up to them to forgive you if they want to, but you owe them a sincere apology.

    And just so we’re clear, I’ve screwed this up too. Just as recently as last spring. It’s going to happen. No one is perfect. Try not to do it again.

    Practical Defense

    Now that you’ve done some ‘active’ things, you need to take the steps to protect yourself. These are hard because it starts with not looking at it.

    Don’t look at what they say about you. Its in our nature to want to know what people are saying about us, but I’m here to tell you not to look. Don’t look. Ignore the comments on other forums and blog posts. Walk away from what’s out there.

    If you do look, document. And there will be things that come at you regardless. You’re going to want to keep a record. I have a spreadsheet with the title and date of every single email someone sent regarding an altercation with Plugins. 300 emails a month, on average, for three months. It was painful to record, but I did it to have a history of his behavior. Which is still going on.

    Are you getting emails? Block them. Did they make a secondary account? Block that. Did they make 69 accounts over multiple email providers and rotate through the accounts to try and talk to you? By the way, yes, that happened. You block them all and you report them. You keep doing this.

    Put their emails in your comment blacklist. Don’t dismiss this. If you use Jetpack contact forms, you can use the blacklist to block them from that. IP block if you have to, though I don’t recommend that. Do what you can stop them from getting to you. If you can’t turn off comments (like I did here), then I recommend requiring all first-time comments be approved, and using the Comment Probation plugin.

    What about social media? If they’re ‘friends,’ I recommend you unfollow and possibly mute. There are people in WordPress whom I’ve muted, because we don’t get along and will argue about everything. It’s not worth it to fight, so I block and I mute very fast. This is for my own sanity because emotional attacks hurt worse.

    It someone calls you names, it hurts. If someone attacks your choices, it hurts. Well when someone continues to belabor a point, argue past the point of sense, and absorb hours of your time, they’re hurting you. You are allowed to ask them to stop and leave you alone. Of course, this doesn’t often work.

    The Warning Signs

    As many people will tell you, asking someone to stop, even a simple “I don’t want to continue this conversation here, please email X,” can result in unexpected explosions. This is an escalation in behaviour, as someone is demonstrating a distinct lack of respect for you, and human decency. Usually this is because they’re hurt too and lashing out, and it’s hard for people to look past that.

    Bear in mind, a threat doesn’t just mean “You better not walk down a dark alley alone” — and yes, someone said that once. Sometimes a threat is “I sent a package to your office.” Now, I bet nearly every non-male reading this just nodded. For those of you who didn’t, let me elaborate.

    When an online conversation crosses into the ‘physical world’ (for lack of a better term), it’s a major red flag. If you’ve been tweeting or emailing someone, and they send you, say, an apology letter, or email a photo of their company apologizing, you need to worry. This is because they’re attempting to play to your emotions.

    When they make that next step, though, claiming to send you flowers, that’s when you need to get a hold of authority figures and friends. Fast. I will warn you, if the person making the claim is out of state or out of country, it’s very hard to get legal help. You can, but it’s hard. If you work at a specific location, make sure they know. Make sure people you live with are aware. Anyone you think might be targeted, you need to warn.

    There are a number of micro-aggressions that indicate this behavior, from Sealioning to Gaslighting. But that’s a talk in and of itself. What you should hang on to here is that you need to trust your gut. Women, people of color, queers, any minority, we’re pretty in tune with that bad feeling that a conversation is going to go sour. Trust that. If someone turns to you and says “Hey, this person looks like they’re escalating,” then you should listen.

    Get Help

    I said it before, let me say it again. Give your teams a heads up. I had someone follow me all the way to my company, and we had to get legal involved because of threats expressed. I’ve even had to have a security officer on site for a WordCamp talk because someone went far enough that I felt concerned for my physical safety. These aren’t jokes. These are people who have lost the ability to see reason.

    You need to tell people in charge. If you’re afraid to tell your boss, you can try this with them or your HR rep or a trusted co-worker:

    I’m sorry to bring some personal issues into work, but there’s someone who has been harassing me, and I think they’re going to bring it into the workspace.

    No template is perfect or nuanced enough to handle all situations, and if you need help figuring out how to tell your employers, grab a trusted friend and ask for help.

    Beyond warning people you work with, get help. Ask for what you need, even if you know it’s the wrong person to ask. They may know who to talk to. I needed a new feature built into WordPress’ tool for plugin reviews to blacklist people so we stopped getting 30 emails in a day in our inbox. Speak up. Your teammates and friends should have your back. And if they don’t listen, go louder and over their heads as high as you need to. Go public if you have to.

    Practical Defense

    Even if you do all this, you have to keep in mind that once you are pointed at as ‘the bad guy’ people will go bonkers. They will be obsessed with every single thing you do. And this means you cannot bait them. Look, I love a good subtweet as much as anyone, but for the duration of this drama, you must not poke the bears. Don’t even drop a hint. While being harassed by said the aforementioned serial emailer (we’re up to 1000 emails now by the way), I complained about someone else, my cable company as it happened, but he took it to mean I was talking about him. It sucked.

    This is the scary thing, and the reason you’ve got to walk away from them. When they get obsessive, reading thousands of tweets deep or dredging up a forum post from before you were a moderator to prove a point, they’ve gone past sense and into obsession. This is terrifying. Which is why you’ve got to put your shields up.

    I want to point out the specific things you can do here. These are generally easy to do from a technical perspective, but not emotionally.

    Twitter

    First you de-friend. If they’re not a friend, you mute. If they escalate, you block. Some people you will jump right to a block because they’re just so wrong. But do it and walk away. The nice thing about a block and a mute is that it prevents you from reading their tweets at all.

    Turn off Twitter notifications for young accounts and people who don’t follow you. Use the quality filters. Disable DMs from people you don’t follow.

    If somerone attacks you or is vulgar, report the tweets and block them. Blocking an account you’ve reported will increase the chances that Twitter will actually do anything. Also ask your friends to report and block anything else they made public. It will help.

    Facebook & Instagram

    So I hate Facebook for a lot of reasons, and this is one. See, pretty much all you can do is build a wall. Facebook cares more about selling your personal information than protecting you from harassment. All you can do is lock your account away and block people. Report, yes, but if my wife’s death threat is any hint, they will do nothing.

    Still, I recommend you report content. You need to report the individual posts as well as the user account.

    Also curate the hell out of your friends. If you can’t remember why you friended them, it’s a good time to un-friend.

    Everything Else? You set your account private and block judiciously. You don’t have to worry about Google+ any more, but lordy, I promise that was a nightmare trying to block people. Snapchat is pretty ephemeral, things don’t stick around long, so it’s not an easy place to manage but still report and block.

    I have to mention this because we use Slack for WordPress.org work. And here, there is only one thing you can do when someone’s harassing you. You need to find an admin. Go into the Slack group and click “Customize Slack.” Then pick “About this workspace”. Click on the “Admins & Owners” tab. Ping one, explain the tl;dr and make sure you have logs of your harassment. Good luck.

    On a forum? Ask for moderator help. If this is an in-public ask, keep it simple. “I need a moderator. Someone is harassing me. Who can I speak to about this?” If you’re on WordPress.org’s forum, tap the ‘report topic’ button after you post and a Moderator will be alerted. Or come to the #forums slack channel and ask for help.

    I Hope You Never Have to Do This

    I really do. I hope none of you ever have to do this, and that your takeaway is “Gosh, I should make it easier for people to protect themselves on my systems!” And if you are going through this, protect yourself as best you can and remember, just because you’re the bad guy doesn’t mean the other person is a hero.

  • Monitored Automation

    Monitored Automation

    One of the things I touched on in my talk at WordCamp NYC in September was the fact that automation has it’s flaws. The problems we face with automated systems flagging LGBTQ videos as ‘restricted’ or trending horrific topics or promulgating fake news is all because of automation. We did this to ourselves.

    Computers Share Our Biases

    Humans have biases, which color the ways in which we develop code. If we feel no one should be able to use a lower case P in WordPress (because that’s it’s name) then we can use our biases to programatically force that. Right or wrong, we are biased in many other ways.

    The bias of robots is limited to what we’ve taught the robot. There’s no such thing as a true AI yet. Yes, I know European Parliament has declared robots to be ‘electronic persons’ and therefore responsible for their actions. In the case of automated reviews, the robot lacks the ability to detect nuance. It lacks ethics and morals. It cannot make a judgment of what is worth more than something else.

    The flip side to this is that humans do what we’re told to do too. Sort of. If I tell you to download a file, review the code for security and sanity, but not make a moral judgement on it’s use, you will and you won’t. Oh sure, you understand it’s not your job, or responsibility, so you’ll try not to. We don’t ask the TSA to make a value judgement on what’s in our luggage, we ask them to determine if it’s allowed or not.

    Biases Drive Design

    Computers, even the most advanced, make decisions based on how we program them. If we tell them “The word Nazi is bad” then anything with that term that is submitted will be rejected. Even a tool by, say, the Holocaust Museum, talking about how their skill provides trivia about the Nazis’ rise to power.

    The reason a computer has bias is because we, the people who program the computers, have bias. We are capable of discussing the paradox of tolerance and, in many cases, of coming to an agreement as to what should and should not be permitted. It’s easy to say that guns are illegal on airplanes. It’s not easy to say that being mean will get you kicked off a plane, because that’s subjective.

    Back to the TSA. If you brought a pair of fuzzy handcuffs in your carry on, which is legal as of the time I wrote this, you would be permitted to do so, but someone would comment. You may even end up having a very public conversation about your private life. And yes, that TSA agent is totally making a value judgement about you.

    Who Watches the WatchMon?

    The answer, the solution to these problems, is difficult. On the one hand, a computer won’t judge you for the fuzzy handcuffs. On the other, it may also decide you’re a criminal for having them in your luggage. A human would understand the purpose of a skill that talks about Nazis not being hate speech, but they also may judge you for having some Nazi swag in your bag for your demonstration class.

    Curiously the solution comes with a blend of automation and humanity. There are some things that should be auto-rejected. If you have a rule based on a clear technical limitation, then a computer should be relied on to process those. Except in practice, this is not the case. Instead, we need a human to check, approve or not, and move on to the next possibility. That’s right, the solution to the automation problem is human monitoring.

    Human Bias Isn’t Solveable

    We can’t stop people from being biased.

    We can meet regularly to discuss the situation, but something needs to go over all the approvals and rejections to see what people are actually doing. So then we have automation monitor the human in reverse. A computer monitors and makes its calls “It looks like X is trending.” A human checks the trends and, if they notice something abnormal (like Betty White trending on a Tuesday afternoon), then can check if she’s done something.

    If a human manually removes Betty White from trending every time is shows up, a computer can flag that for their supervisor to ask why the hate for The Golden Girls. But this means someone has to sit down and talk about removing one’s personal biases from work, and I promise you, it’s harder than it looks.

    Automate But Verify

    The ultimate answer? If you’re not monitoring and verifying your automation, you’re doing it wrong. Much like we say ‘test your backups,’ you have to test everything you task a computer to automagically do.

  • Do Robots Dream of Electric Smut?

    Do Robots Dream of Electric Smut?

    In July of 2018, I was informed by Google Adsense that specific content on my site was going to have “restricted ad serving” and I needed to go to the policy centre on Adsense to find out why. There was no link to this centre, by the way, and it took me a while to figure out I went to Adsense > Settings > Policy where I saw this:

    The screen telling me I have adult content on a URL.

    Yes, that image says that the post about Legitimate Porn Plugins was deemed to be sexual content. My guess is that they don’t like the image, because my post about how GPL says Porn is Okay did not get flagged.

    My friend pointed out that it was ridiculously damaging to moderate content (or at least in this case, revenue) by “casting a wide net based solely on the presence of key words” and she’s quite right. Now I did attempt to get Google to reconsider, but like my past experiences with their censorship and draconian view, they don’t give a damn if you aren’t ‘big.’ And even then, important people get slapped by Google all the time.

    History? What History?

    In 1964, there was a landmark case in the US, Jacobellis vs Ohio, about whether the state of Ohio could, consistent with the First Amendment, ban the showing of the Louis Malle film The Lovers (Les Amants), which the state had deemed obscene. During that case, and the reason it became so well known, was not the content matter.

    In fact, the decision remained quite fragmented until 1973 Miller v. California decision in which it was declared that to be smut (i.e. obscene) it must be utterly without redeeming social importance. The SLAPS test addresses this with a check for “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” – and yes, the acronym is hilarious.

    No, everyone knows about the first case because of the following quote by Justice Potter Stewart:

    I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

    Tea, Earl Grey, Hot

    When I was very young, maybe six, my father did a talk about artificial intelligence with a slide of Captain Kirk ordering things from the ship’s computer. It stuck with me, which Dad finds amusing, and I’ve often reflected back on it as an understanding of what an AI can and cannot do.

    The ship’s computer on Star Trek can do a great many things, but it cannot make ‘decisions’ for a person. In the end, a human always has to decide what to do with the variables, what they mean, and how they should be used. Kirk has to ask the computer to chill the wine, for example, and if he doesn’t specify a temperature, the computer will go back to what some other human (or more likely Mr. Spock) has determined is the optimal temperature.

    AIs don’t exist. Even as useful as I find digital assistants like Siri and Alexa, I know they aren’t intelligent and they cannot make decisions. They can follow complex if/then/else patterns, but they lack the ability to make innovation. What happens if Kirk just asks for ‘white wine, chilled’? What vintage will he receive? What temperature?

    To a degree, this is addressed with how Captain Picard orders his tea. “Tea, Earl Grey, hot.” But someone had to teach the system what ‘hot’ meant and what it meant to Jean-Luc and not Riker, who probably never drank any tea. Still, Picard has learned to specify that he wants Earl Grey tea, and he wants it hot. There’s probably some poor tech boffin in the belly of Starfleet who had to enter the optimum temperatures for each type of tea. Certainly my electric kettle has a button for ‘black tea’ but it also tells me that’s 174 degrees Fahrenheit.

    Automation Limitations

    My end result with Google was that I had to set up that specific page to not show ads. Ever. Because Google refused to get a human to take a look and go “Oh, its the image, remove that and you’re fine.” But even then a human could look at the image, recognize it’s not pornography, and flag it as clean.

    What we have is a limitation in the system, where in there is no human checking, which results in me getting annoyed, and Google being a monolithic annoyance. Basically, Google has automated the system to their specifications, and then instead of putting humans on the front lines to validate, they let it go.

    This makes sense from a business perspective, if you’re as big as Google at least. It costs less. But we’ve all read stories about people getting locked out of their Google accounts, for a month or more, and facing drama because there’s no way to get in touch with a human being.

    The Heart of It All is Humans

    And that’s really the heart of the problem.

    Have you ever visited a forum or a chat site and it’s full of people acting like decent people to each other? Humans did that. A human sat down, purged the site of the vile content, and had to sit and read it to be sure. They pushed back on trolls and other problematic people, all to help you.

    Don’t believe me? Okay, do you remember the WordPress plugin WangGuard by José Conti? He shut the service down in 2017 because it was giving him a mental break down. The plugin worked so well because he, a human being, evaluated content.

    WangGuard worked in two different ways, one an algorithm that had been perfecting for 7 years, and that was perfecting as the sploggers evolved, so it was always ahead of them. And a second part that was human, in which I reviewed many things, and among them sploggers websites to see their content, improve the algorithm and make sure that it worked correctly both when a site was blocked and not it was. The great secret of WangGuard, was this second part, without this second part, WangGuard would not have become what it was.

    José Conti – The True Reason for the Closure of WangGuard

    Basically, Conti gave himself PTSD trying to make the internet a better place.

    Because the absolute only way to make sure something was evil was to look at it. And the only way to make sure something is porn is to look at it.

    An AI can’t do that yet.

  • Conceptualizing Privacy

    Conceptualizing Privacy

    I know a wonderful human named Heather Burns who cares about privacy and GDPR and has made me quite passionate about understanding what the heck I’m talking about. She’s infectious, smart, and well worded. When she talks I listen.

    Earlier this year, she posted her slides from a speaking event, PHP Yorkshire. One of them resonated with me to the point that I keep thinking about it:

    US vs UK/Europe concept of Privacy
    Source: Heather Burns’ PHP Yorkshire Slides

    I sat and read it a few times, and I realized that I absolutely 100% agree with all of the UK/Europe concepts and only one of the US’s. I won’t touch on all of them, but here are the ones I spend a lot of time pondering.

    Ownership vs Freedom

    In the US, there’s a massive misconception that you have a right to say what you want about what you want without consequences. This is absolutely not true. Freedom of speech, in the United states, does not exculpate me from what happens to me after I say a thing. But we have a big bugaboo here about how our freedoms are fundamental rights. So even though the first few Amendments to the Constitution are quite clearly about their direct applications to ‘against the government’ and ‘in a militia,’ people take them, twist them, and make them apply to everything else.

    This runs into an issue with GDPR and people in the UK and Europe, where the law is that you own your own data. You have a right to it, and to what’s said about you. Yeah hang on there. Folks in the US have a right to say what we want. Folks in the UK/Europe have a right to make us shut up.

    That’s working out about as well as you’d think, mostly because we disagree about this other thing…

    Data Ownership

    Really, it should be pretty simple for the freedom of speech to coexist with the right to be private. If I post lies about you, you are legally within your rights in the US to demand I take them down. If I post information about you that wasn’t public, like I know you like burn Beanie Babies (those are stuffed animals, folks), then in the US you’re kind of out of luck unless you can prove it caused you ‘harm.’ Across the pond? I have to delete it.

    And right there, I agree with the Europeans. If I take privileged information and make it public, I’m a horrible human first of all. I’ve betrayed your trust, and I’ve probably done it for financial gain. On the other hand, if I take public information (like a photo of you from the Associated Press of you burning a Beanie Baby in Central Park) and share it, I’m still a pretty horrible human, but not in the same way.

    As a human, I think I should have the right to own my own data. But this comes with a measure of responsibility. In other words, I’m responsible for what I put out there. If I make it public that I’m a lesbian (which I did), am I legally allowed to demand you remove all references to me being one on your site? In other words, do I get take-backs if I make things public?

    Maybe, but over yonder, I should at least ask first!

    Cooperation Before Court

    There’s a concept called “Assume good faith” and it’s one of Wikipedia’s fundamental principles. It’s related to the concept that we should never attribute to malice that which can be ascribed to ignorance. Generally this comes up when I talk to people about copyright or trademark violations. I never assume people meant to violate those things, just that they were unaware of things.

    The idea that someone has to ask me to remove a thing before suing me would be a lovely thing. The closest I can think of in the US is the way DMCA requests are handled. That is, I can issue a counter notice and either state “Hey, removed it!” argue back that it’s fair use. But that isn’t the same as the idea that we should talk before we go to lawyers. And that’s, you know, respectful.

    I spend a lot of time thinking about this based on two other sites I run, where there is personal information of other people. It’s all public-personal information, but in general if someone asks me to remove data, I’ve complied. There was one instance where I didn’t, and I explained why not and the other person agreed it was a fair representation of the situation.

    What Happens Now?

    Well. A lot of confusion and arguments about who has the right to what and where and when.

    There’s going to be a lot of change in your future.

  • I’ll Know A Duck When I See It

    I’ll Know A Duck When I See It

    After I complained about the new SEO scam, someone pointedly argued it wasn’t spam. And it wasn’t a scam.

    It is and it’s both.

    What Is Spam?

    By it’s most basic definition, spam is an irrelevant or otherwise inappropriate message, sent on the internet, to a large group of people.

    With that definition in hand, someone who interrupts a Slack or IRC meeting to tell a joke is spamming. At the same time, Tweeting inanities is not unless you cut into a conversation thread. And the different being that Twitter is always irrelevant so any comment there is expected to be appropriately inappropriate.

    Spam is More Than Spam

    The issue is that spam has expanded to be more than just that simple blast of junk you didn’t care about. Spam now includes things like being added to an email list you didn’t want to join. And it includes people trying to rip you off.

    A scam is an attempt to get something from you. The end goal of a lot of spam is to scam you out of money, so the intersection there is pretty high. It always has been. The result of a spambot is to convince you to do something you didn’t want, in order to get something you have. But the target of scams is to out and out separate you from your money.

    If It Looks Like a Duck …

    You’ve probably heard of the duck test.

    If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

    When people read an email from some Nigerian prince, they know it’s spam because they’ve seen things like it before. But they also know it’s a scam because they’ve been taught that no one offers something for nothing.

    Unsolicited Emails Are Ducks

    If you get an email you didn’t ask for, from someone you’ve never heard of, offering something that’s too good to be true (like ‘free backlinks’), it’s a duck.

    If you look at the emails from these people who offer to help you fix your site and improve your links to broken locations, it’s a duck. It’s a scam, it’s spam, and you should delete it. Don’t even ask.