Fark To Add 'Misogyny' to List of Bannable Offenses

[REP]

Article on Jezebel

Fark To Add 'Misogyny' to List of Bannable Offenses


Rebecca Rose
JEZEBEL

Rebecca Rose
Filed to: MISOGYNY
SEXISM
ONLINE
CYBERBULLYING
HARASSMENT
COMPUTERS
TECHNOLOGY
FORUMS
COMMENTING
FARK
DREW CURTIS

Hell yes. A major online community is cracking down on instances of abusive language towards women and guess what? It's a really big fucking deal and you should feel good about it.

Today Fark announced it would add misogyny to its moderator guidelines. For those who aren't familiar with the site, Fark (founded in 1999) was one of the first major link aggregators. They also just became one of the first sites of its kind to outright ban misogyny in comments. Let that sink in for a moment. They're doing what many other sites have said is virtually impossible because of technological reasons or because of it would cause the absolute goddamn collapse of all civil liberties and free speech or something. But Fark.com founder and site admin Drew Curtis said fuck all that noise. He just laid some serious smack down in the battle to stop online harassment of women. In a message posted today on the site, Curtis got real about the Internet's problem with women:

...if the Internet was a dude, we'd all agree that dude has a serious problem with women.

[BainsBane]

1. It's not impossible to ban

It simply requires viewing women as human beings worthy of respect.

[Louisiana1976]

4. True.

[REP]

21. I know of a site that bans for hateful language

I'm familiar with a site that generally doesn't tolerate racism or homophobia. It's not consistent, but there is a feeling that neither of those things are acceptable. The world has not ended because posts and posters with those attitudes are, for the most part, not allowed. Give me a moment and the name of that site will come to me. Anyway, I don't think adding misogyny to 'what is not allowed' would that difficult for any popular website. Maybe for small, insignificant ones it would be.

[littlemissmartypants]

2. Excellent catch, REP.

Thanks for your post.
Love, Peace and Shelter.
~ Lmsp

[whistler162]

3. Rough......

Banning

COMPUTERS
TECHNOLOGY
FORUMS
COMMENTING

Don't know what FARK is but it must not be real active!

[cyberswede]

9. I think those are tags for the article, not things being banned.

[REP]

26. You're correct; I just didn't edit them out

[Gormy Cuss]

5. About time

and a good start. Here's hoping that other major online communities follow suit.

[etherealtruth]

6. Hopefully other sites will follow suit

"...we don't want to be the He Man Woman Hater's Club. This represents enough of a departure from pretty much how every other large internet community operates that I figure an announcement is necessary."

[redqueen]

20. "This represents enough of a departure from pretty much how every other large internet community

operates..."

So sadly true.

Bless him for taking this step.

[etherealtruth]

25. YES!!!!!!! n/t

[BainsBane]

32. It's important because

the more views that treat women are less are treated as just another opinion, the more bigotry is reinforced and perpetuated. That's as true for misogyny as any other kind of bigotry.

[REP]

24. It's a really encouraging thing

Fark is not a gentle community of group hugs and maturity. When a site like Fark steps up and says, in effect, 'enough of this bullshit,' it's pretty significant.

I want to say a little something that's long overdue
The disrespect to women has got to be through
To all the mothers and sisters and the wives and friends
I want to offer my love and respect to the end

Beastie Boys - Sure Shot

[bigtonka]

7. Thank you, Fark

[Hoppy]

8. Thought crimes and expressions of one's thoughts are not acceptable.

From Jefferson's First Inaugural Address. "... errors of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it."

The only reason to prohibit thought crimes is if you are so unsure of your position that you can't defend it. The most conspicuous example of this is in the Religion and Atheist threads. Or better yet, fundamentalist Islam.

[NuclearDem]

10. Well that didn't take very long at all.

Thoughtcrime! Censorship! 1984!

splort splort splort

[cyberswede]

11. Oh FFS.

Nobody is preventing people from holding or expressing their thoughts. I'm sure the poor misogynists can find other sites to get their hate on - like the entire rest of the internet.

[etherealtruth]

12. Oh this is an outrage ....

Hate speech being limited on a private site

[ljm2002]

13. Sooo, no rules then?

I mean, if banning certain types of speech on a site amounts to monitoring "thought crimes" when it's Fark banning misogynistic comments... then DU has no business banning posts that make personal insults, or insult gays, or rant against Democratic candidates during an election. Because, you know, free(dumb).

[Arugula Latte]

28. And to carry that line of thinking further, DU has no business banning rightwing/Republican posters

[Phentex]

14. Hence the phrase...

It's a testament to the sad state of the internet that "don't be a misogynyst" can't go without saying.

[bettyellen]

16. LOL, a deleted post is not criminal punishment.....read the TOS *you agreed to*- would ya?

We really do not want to waste time giving Tea Baggers, racists and other RW haters free reign here. They have 90% of the internet already. You want to engage, go and have at it.

[bullwinkle428]

17. Check out the Yahoo boards & Youtube comments and get back to me, Hopalong.

Oh, and K&R for the thread.

[stevenleser]

22. Which would totally apply if it was the government saying no one could do this.

But its not, so it doesnt

[Brickbat]

29. People are free to express any opinion they want. Fark is free to refuse to host any opinion they

object to.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

37. Think whatever you like but, if you do not filter from the brain to the keyboard, a jury might take

issue ... or, maybe not.

No one is prohibiting thinking.

No one is even questioning your motive.

It is the ACTION that is being discussed.

[seaglass]

15. This gives me hope that it might happen here. n/t

[redqueen]

18. !!!!!!

They're doing what many other sites have said is virtually impossible because of technological reasons or because of it would cause the absolute goddamn collapse of all civil liberties and free speech or something.

But Fark.com founder and site admin Drew Curtis said fuck all that noise. He just laid some serious smack down in the battle to stop online harassment of women. In a message posted today on the site, Curtis got real about the Internet's problem with women:

...if the Internet was a dude, we'd all agree that dude has a serious problem with women.

Progress!

[BainsBane]

33. Technological reasons?

What technological reasons? It's no harder to prohibit misogyny than any other form of bigotry. It is simply a question of what values and principles the site wants to reflect. It's great FARK took a stand. I've never used the site but I'll make a point of looking for it now.

[REP]

34. That's a quote from the Jezebel piece

Rebecca Rose (the author) was being a bit sceptical of the usual reasons of "oh no, we can't do anything about misogyny."

[BainsBane]

35. I realize that

My comment was about the absurdity of it.

[REP]

36. Yeah, I was just looking for something to reply to to kick :-)

[BainsBane]

41. I like your honesty

It deserves a kick!

[cwydro]

19. Yes

[stevenleser]

23. K&R nt

[X_Digger]

27. Wait, someone still visits fark?!? n/t

[redqueen]

30. More people than visit here. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

38. !

[moriah]

39. So are they going to change "Boobies" to something else for "First Post"?

Probably not, but it'd be a nice start.

[REP]

40. Why change it? They're adorable!