ListNook

Alright folks, [this discussion](https://www.listnook.com/r/blog/comments/2foivo/every_man_is_responsible_for_his_own_soul/) has pretty obviously devolved and we're not getting anywhere. The blame for that definitely lies with us. We're trying to explain some of what has been going on here, but the simultaneous banning of that set of sublistnooks entangled in this situation has hurt our ability to have that conversation with you, the community. A lot of people are saying what we're doing here reeks of bullshit, and I don't blame them. I'm not going to ask that you agree with me, but I hope that reading this will give you a better understanding of the decisions we've been poring over constantly over the past week, and perhaps give the community some deeper insight and understanding of what is happening here. I would ask, but obviously not require, that you read this fully and carefully before responding or voting on it. I'm going to give you the very raw breakdown of what has been going on at listnook, and it is likely to be coloured by my own personal opinions. All of us working on this over the past week are f****** exhausted, including myself, so you'll have to forgive me if this seems overly dour. Also, as an aside, my main job at listnook is systems administration. I take care of the servers that run the site. It isn't my job to interact with the community, but I try to do what I can. I'm certainly not the best communicator, so please feel free to ask for clarification on anything that might be unclear. With that said, here is what has been happening at listnook, inc over the past week. A very shitty thing happened this past Sunday. A number of very private and personal photos were stolen and spread across the internet. The fact that these photos belonged to celebrities increased the interest in them by orders of magnitude, but that in no way means they were any less harmful or deplorable. If the same thing had happened to anyone you hold dear, it'd make you sick to your stomach with grief and anger. When the photos went out, they inevitably got linked to on listnook. As more people became aware of them, we started getting a huge amount of traffic, which broke the site in several ways. That same afternoon, we held an internal emergency meeting to figure out what we were going to do about this situation. Things were going pretty crazy in the moment, with many folks out for the weekend, and the site struggling to stay afloat. We had some immediate issues we had to address. First, the amount of traffic hitting this content was breaking the site in various ways. Second, we were already getting DMCA and takedown notices by the owners of these photos. Third, if we were to remove anything on the site, whether it be for technical, legal, or ethical obligations, it would likely result in a backlash where things kept getting posted over and over again, thwarting our efforts and possibly making the situation worse. The decisions which we made amidst the chaos on Sunday afternoon were the following: I would do what I could, including disabling functionality on the site, to keep things running (this was a pretty obvious one). We would handle the DMCA requests as they came in, and recommend that the rights holders contact the company hosting these images so that they could be removed. We would also continue to monitor the site to see where the activity was unfolding, especially in regards to /r/all (we didn't want /r/all to be primarily covered with links to stolen n****, deal with it). I'm not saying all of these decisions were correct, or morally defensible, but it's what we did based on our best judgement in the moment, and our experience with similar incidents in the past. In the following hours, a lot happened. I had to break /r/thefappening a few times to keep the site from completely falling over, which as expected resulted in an immediate creation of a new slew of sublistnooks. Articles in the press were flying out and we were getting comment requests left and right. Many community members were understandably angered at our lack of action or response, and made that known in various ways. Later that day we were alerted that some of these photos depicted minors, which is where we have drawn a clear line in the sand. In response we immediately started removing things on listnook which we found to be linking to those pictures, and also recommended that the image hosts be contacted so they could be removed more permanently. We do not allow links on listnook to child p********** or images which sexualize children. If you disagree with that stance, and believe listnook cannot draw that line while also being a platform, I'd encourage you to leave. This nightmare of the weekend made myself and many of my coworkers feel pretty awful. I had an obvious responsibility to keep the site up and running, but seeing that all of my efforts were due to a huge number of people scrambling to look at stolen private photos didn't sit well with me personally, to say the least. We hit new traffic milestones, ones which I'd be ashamed to share publicly. Our general stance on this stuff is that listnook is a platform, and there are times when platforms get used for very deplorable things. We take down things we're legally required to take down, and do our best to keep the site getting from spammed or manipulated, and beyond that we *try* to keep our hands off. Still, in the moment, seeing what we were seeing happen, it was hard to see much merit to that viewpoint. As the week went on, press stories went out and debate flared everywhere. A lot of focus was obviously put on us, since listnook was clearly one of the major places people were using to find these photos. We continued to receive DMCA takedowns as these images were constantly rehosted and linked to on listnook, and in response we continued to remove what we were legally obligated to, and beyond that instructed the rights holders on how to contact image hosts. Meanwhile, we were having a huge amount of debate internally at listnook, inc. A lot of members on our team could not understand what we were doing here, why we were continuing to allow ourselves to be party to this flagrant violation of privacy, why we hadn't made a statement regarding what was going on, and how on earth we got to this point. It was messy, and continues to be. The pseudo-result of all of this debate and argument has been that we should continue to be as open as a platform as we can be, and that while we in no way condone or agree with this activity, we should not intervene beyond what the law requires. The arguments for and against are numerous, and this is not a comfortable stance to take in this situation, but it is what we have decided on. That brings us to today. After painfully arriving at a stance internally, we felt it necessary to make a statement on the listnook blog. We could have let this die down in silence, as it was already tending to do, but we felt it was critical that we have this conversation with our community. If you haven't read it yet, **[please do so](http://www.listnookblog.com/2014/09/every-man-is-responsible-for-his-own.html)**. So, we posted the message in the blog, and then we obliviously did something which heavily confused that message: We banned /r/thefappening and related sublistnooks. The confusion which was generated in the community was obvious, immediate, and massive, and we even had internal team members surprised by the combination. Why are we sending out a message about how we're being open as a platform, and not changing our stance, and then immediately banning the sublistnooks involved in this mess? The answer is probably not satisfying, but it's the truth, and the only answer we've got. The situation we had in our hands was the following: These sublistnooks were of course the focal point for the sharing of these stolen photos. The images which were DMCAd were continually being reposted constantly on the sublistnook. We would takedown images (thumbnails) in response to those DMCAs, but it quickly devolved into a game of whack-a-mole. We'd execute a takedown, someone would adjust, reupload, and then repeat. This same practice was occurring with the underage photos, requiring our constant intervention. The mods were doing their best to keep things under control and in line with the [site rules](http://www.listnook.com/rules), but problems were still constantly overflowing back to us. Additionally, many nefarious parties recognized the popularity of these images, and started spamming them in various ways and attempting to infect or scam users viewing them. It became obvious that we were either going to have to watch these sublistnooks constantly, or shut them down. We chose the latter. It's obviously not going to solve the problem entirely, but it will at least mitigate the constant issues we were facing. This was an extreme circumstance, and we used the best judgement we could in response. --- Now, after all of the context from above, I'd like to respond to some of the common questions and concerns which folks are raising. To be extremely frank, I find *some* of the lines of reasoning that have generated these questions to be batshit insane. Still, in the vacuum of information which we have created, I recognize that we have given rise to much of this strife. As such I'll try to answer even the things which I find to be the most off-the-wall. Q: You're only doing this in response to pressure from the public/press/celebrities/Conde/Advance/other! A: The press and nature of this incident obviously made this issue extremely public, but it was not the reason why we did what we did. If you read all of the above, hopefully you can be recognize that the actions we have taken were our own, for our own internal reasons. I can't force anyone to believe this of course, you'll simply have to decide what you believe to be the truth based on the information available to you. Q: Why aren't you banning these other sublistnooks which contain deplorable content?! A: We remove what we're required to remove by law, and what violates any [rules](http://www.listnook.com) which we have set forth. Beyond that, we feel it is necessary to maintain as neutral a platform as possible, and to let the communities on listnook be represented by the actions of the people who participate in them. I believe the [blog post](http://www.listnookblog.com/2014/09/every-man-is-responsible-for-his-own.html) speaks very well to this. We have banned /r/TheFappening and related sublistnooks, for reasons I outlined above. Q: You're doing this because of the IAmA app launch to please celebs! A: No, I can say absolutely and clearly that the IAmA app had zero bearing on our course of decisions regarding this event. I'm sure it is exciting and intriguing to think that there is some clandestine connection, but it's just not there. Q: Are you planning on taking down all copyrighted material across the site? A: We take down what we're required to by law, which may include thumbnails, in response to valid DMCA takedown requests. Beyond that we tell claimants to contact whatever host is actually serving content. This policy will not be changing. Q: You profited on the gold given to users in these deplorable sublistnooks! Give it back / Give it to charity! A: This is a tricky issue, one which we haven't figured out yet and that I'd welcome input on. Gold was purchased by our users, to give to other users. Redirecting their funds to a random charity which the original payer may not support is not something we're going to do. We also do not feel that it is right for us to decide that certain things should not receive gold. The user purchasing it decides that. We don't hold this stance because we're money hungry (the amount of money in question is small). That's all I have. Please forgive any confusing bits above, it's very late and I've written this in urgency. I'll be around for as long as I can to answer questions in the comments.

197 Comments

Lord_Dimmock Sep 7, 2014 +3385

So it is still perfectly acceptable to post pictures of dead kids and execution videos along with stolen content from Joe Publics phone? Just checking. edit - I just got back from work and I was unprepared for what I come home to, thanks for the gold strangers. I just wish it was for something that was less controversial.. like a picture of cute hamsters or something nice like that.

3385

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +1859

Their decision to ban fappening related sublistnooks had entirely to do with DMCA notices and damage control, and nothing at all to do with morality. They have made it very clear they will not intervene on grounds of morality. If the sublistnooks with pictures of dead kids and execution videos and stolen Joe photos raised legal issues, they would deal with them, but that's never going to happen because they're too off the radar.

1859

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +983

[deleted]

983

bronze_v_op Sep 7, 2014 +267

I don't think it's that people don't understand what's happening, I think it's that their angry about it, and that these admin statements contradict themselves, and I think people are trying to bring light to that fact.

267

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +50

And those yelling "Ban _____" are demonstrating precisely why listnook can not make it their policy to ban sublistnooks based on morality. It would be never ending. Every week there would be a new sub to ban or a new post explaining why a certain sub *wouldn't* be banned.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +264

The admins have a responsibility to keep the site out of legal trouble (As in keeping it alive). They could choose to enforce their moral code on everyone else, but they don't. Are a lot of things posted on this site absolutely awful? Yes. But if they don't break any laws, the admins don't have any reason to remove it beyond the fact that they themselves find it distasteful. Which is the exact opposite of being a platform for sharing whatever content you might want to share.

264

TimeZarg Sep 7, 2014 +78

Publicly-available/public domain execution videos are not illegal. They may be highly distasteful to many people, but they aren't illegal. I *think* the same applies to pictures of dead kids, except in certain situations. Content stolen from a phone can be taken down after a DCMA request is made. Until then, admins won't touch it, because they're not legally required to do so.

nathanjayy Sep 7, 2014 +2911

Their answer has been a big resounding YES from the inception of the website. Dead people and Joe don't have lawyers.

2911

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +1498

Neither do diddled dogs. -------- /r/SexWithDogs -------- *^Join ^the ^rabblion ^at ^/r/sovereignlistnook. ^It's ^like ^offmychest ^but ^with ^the ^sweet ^taste ^of ^camaraderie. ^Down ^with ^fascism. ^A ^utopia ^of ^united ^rage ^against ^the ^machinery ^of ^censorship*

1498

yangar Sep 7, 2014 +229

I wonder if PETA made an awareness campaign, which they are prone to doing, if admins would react.

229

i_eatProstitutes Sep 7, 2014 +128

I guarantee we'd see some kind of blog post or announcement, but the real question is "why the hell is there a sublistnook for dog p***??!!"

128

Deadly_Duplicator Sep 7, 2014 +45

[You don't need a lawyer to send a DMCA request](http://www.dmca-info.com/sending-a-dmca-takedown-notice.html), which according to the post is all they require to take something down. Other than that, they make it explicit they will not interfere at all and let the users decide.

BurnoutEyes Sep 7, 2014 +4

You don't need a lawyer, but you should really get one. A valid DMCA notice requires: "A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive right allegedly being infringed. " Let's say these celebrities file a DMCA notice, but it turns out their boyfriend took the picture. Guess what? They just perjured themselves, because they are not the owners of the copyright.

orangejulius Sep 7, 2014 +1431

> Q: Why aren't you banning these other sublistnooks which contain deplorable content?! > > A: We remove what we're required to remove by law, and what violates any rules which we have set forth. Beyond that, we feel it is necessary to maintain as neutral a platform as possible, and to let the communities on listnook be represented by the actions of the people who participate in them. I believe the blog post speaks very well to this. > We have banned /r/TheFappening and related sublistnooks, for reasons I outlined above. Every second a sub like http://www.listnook.com/r/photoplunder/ is up after this you're basically saying that unless a person has enough money to hire an attorney, or is savvy enough to create a DMCA take down, or find your DMCA procedure to make you do work their stolen n*** pictures are fair game. The victims might not even be aware of them. That's reprehensible. Particularly given the tenor of that blog post and your comment about being shocked if it were your own family member. I don't know why you edited that part about family out. >Q: You profited on the gold given to users in these deplorable sublistnooks! Give it back / Give it to charity! >A: This is a tricky issue, one which we haven't figured out yet and that I'd welcome input on. You could always follow the suit of the Prostate Cancer Foundation and return the money generated from someone else's stolen images and likeness used for commercial gain. I'm somewhat amazed an enterprising attorney hasn't hopped on that tort claim yet for one of these celebrities. --- Quick edit - because I sound 'mean' and am not intending to come across that way - I think this is a good opportunity for the admins to prevent the victimization of people online and they should seize that chance.

1431

bilyl Sep 7, 2014 +235

"We remove what we're required to remove by law" is CYA-speech meaning "we'll do the bare minimum to make sure we don't get sued or arrested." Clearly listnook has a ton of other sublistnooks that host very illegal content, and their continual survival means that the admins don't think it's worth their time to actively look for these things unless there's a hint of trouble. They could just be honest and say "we don't have the manpower to monitor everything", but they clearly went the moral rationalization route about free speech and self-governance.

235

ZadocPaet Sep 7, 2014 +373

> The victims might not even be aware of them. Not only that, but he specifically said that if the copyright holder contacts them with the DCMA then they'll respond. The copyright holder is the photographer. So if some girl's ex boyfriend took n**** of her and posted them, and even if the girl finds out and sends in a take down request, she's not the copyright holder, he is, and therefore she can't legally make the request. Edit: I think a bigger part of FapGate is that a lot of us see listnook as kind of internet heroes who should stand up against things like DMCA take downs.

373

AchillesWay Sep 7, 2014 +105

If that's true that's pretty fucked up. Sure the girl in the photo might have given consent for the photo to be taken (when they were a couple) but she (I'm guessing) didn't give consent to that photo being uploaded to a public domain. Why would she have no say? Or is it no say purely on a copyrights ground?

105

ZadocPaet Sep 7, 2014 +21

> hy would she have no say? Or is it no say purely on a copyrights ground? Purely on copyright grounds. Now, if it was a selfie then she owns the copyright. If it's her ex boyfriend, then it's his property. Remember when some celeb got out of a car like a year ago and some paparazzi got a pic of her cooter? That woman didn't give permission, but the pic was taken in public. The photographer owned the copyright of the pic and sold it to some rags and websites and made a lot of money for sure.

greenkaolin Sep 7, 2014 +32

Model release forms are a real thing in the modeling/acting industry. I've signed my share both for for-profit companies and for small indie cash pit films. But really I have no idea about the laws of just giving away someone elses images for free.

Adderkleet Sep 7, 2014 +7

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-name-or-likeness-another Not quite. You do have rights to your likeness, and DMCA is not a "proof of ownership"; it's "I claim to own this, and you'll need to accept that or we'll sue you".

wub_wub Sep 7, 2014 +2925

I think you should have just said simply "We had to remove thefappening and related sublistnooks due to DMCAs/illegal content and spam" and called it a day instead of the whole "we love free speach, we will never interfere with sublistnooks. Oh and btw we're banning bunch of sublistnooks that have n*** celebrity pictures" which caused a lot of confusion and angry responses. As far as the funds goes, I think someone calculated in that thread that it's only like $500, refund the money and let the users keep gold is probably the best way to avoid being attacked by either side, and the sum isn't that big and I doubt it will really have impact on listnook as whole. Plus you might get some people interested in re-purchasing listnook gold once it expires. That's what I'd do anyway.

2925

love_otter Sep 7, 2014 +3107

Well, since we have you here, can you finally shed some light on the mass shadowbannings and censoring of a large amount of the Zoe Quinn content? Content that broke no rules? The Fappening happened right on that event's heels, and really made everybody forget all about it. I'd still like an explanation and for the mods/ admins at fault to be held accountable. **EDIT**: I've gotten a response from /u/Sporkicide which can be found [here](http://www.listnook.com/r/announcements/comments/2fpdax/time_to_talk/ckbo3ax), and /u/alienth has responded separately to the same issue, found [here.](http://www.listnook.com/r/announcements/comments/2fpdax/time_to_talk/ckbhi0a)

3107

BananaHands007 Sep 7, 2014 +1566

This to me is much more interesting, and WAY more shady. It wasn't DMCA takedowns or trying to halt the spread of child p**********, it was an attempt to stop the flow of **information** and silence discussion. *That* is fucked up. **EDIT** -- So THIS is what it feels like when a comment explodes to 1500 karma after a Sunday afternoon.....hot diggety damn on a stick I might try and reply to comments, but no, I'm **not** saying censorship is worse than child p**********, I'm **not** trying to start a witch hunt, I was simply pointing out what the ZQ issue looked like on our end. At the time, it DID appear to be censorship. It still DOES look like some moderators were doing so. But I was looking for a response from someone behind the scenes, and it looks like we got more than I would've hoped for. I DO want to clarify though, Listnook didn't suddenly go into lockdown over ZQ and there were places to discuss it, but there was quite a bit of deleting and drama, and it wasn't helped by an almost universal "gaming media" vow of silence over the whole issue.

1566

love_otter Sep 7, 2014 +814

Exactly. I could give a f*** about the "sanctity of games journalism", what a laugh that is anyway. The problem with the Zoe Quinn thing is listnook's creepy obsession with sweeping it away, for reasons they don't feel the need to tell us about even weeks after the fact.

814

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +98

Sublistnooks like SRD and Circlebroke went nuts about it the second the drama began. There were long, detailed threads with live updates and all that. Listnook can be a good source if you know even remotely where to subscribe, and are aware of the sublistnook-specific bias.

Zoogy Sep 7, 2014 +23

Yeah if you stay on the larger and most popular sublistnooks or only sublistnooks that affiliate with each other you will run into stuff like this often. The only way I heard about the Zoe Quinn stuff is because I am also subbed to quite a few different smaller gaming sublistnooks that stay away from the larger sublistnooks and their mods.

sidewalkchalked Sep 7, 2014 +387

They will never comment on this. Chew on that. They're responsible for their own souls, though.

387

hazeleyedwolff Sep 7, 2014 +187

"Responsible for their own souls" is the new "consequences will never be the same."

187

Videogamer321 Sep 7, 2014 +24

Yeah, I knew something like the fappening would eventually happen (we have some screwed up sublistnooks, one of my friends came across a really k**** one by accident through the random button out of the hundreds of thousands and immediately nope'd out of here) but while the moderators of /r/gaming have the authority to do whatever they wish with their own sublistnook, quite frankly that was one of the worst pieces of power abuse I have ever seen. I think /u/AutoModerator is a bit like a genie, you start a copy up on a server (or ask the original creator to have it run on your small sublistnook) and it grants you a couple of wishes. It can be pretty much lifesaving for some moderators, but in this case it was a splendid case of what automation can do for content censorship.

Godd2 Sep 7, 2014 +1277

For those who don't know, he's talking about [this /r/gaming post](http://www.listnook.com/r/gaming/comments/2dz0gs/totalbiscuit_discusses_the_state_of_games/). ~25k comments, most of them deleted. For more info, check out [this post](http://www.listnook.com/r/announcements/comments/2fpdax/time_to_talk/ckbgjmv). (source thanks to /u/KGCJZD)

1277

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +80

silentplummet1 Sep 7, 2014 +675

This is really what I want an answer to. I don't care about celebrity n****. I care why 25,000 voices got silenced based on the unsubstantiated allegations of 1 voice.

675

because centralization always ends like this organize, start using a decentralized alternative, move away from listnook and it will die just like digg did

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +14

They got silenced because the mods did it. Admins don't control sublistnooks unless they ban them outright. The only thing that should be answered is the mass shadowbanning and not the moderation of that sublistnook which should be brought over there.

Aiacan12 Sep 7, 2014 +12

> They got silenced because the mods did it. Admins don't control sublistnooks Unless of course they're also mods of /r/games and /r/gaming in addition to being admins like /u/Dacvak and /u/Deimorz happen to be. >The only thing that should be answered is the mass shadowbanning and not the moderation of that sublistnook which should be brought over there. They already answered that. They claimed it was a raid from 4chan. So everyone that went over to 4chan to read the story (you know because it got censored here so you had to go to 4chan to read about it) then came back over here to talk about the story got banned.

LankyChew Sep 7, 2014 +8

Here is how it played out at least in part, on /r/games. This is just a sampling but it is not really that difficult to find since it is all over listnook. https://www.listnook.com/r/Games/comments/2dzpmx/rgames_meta_discussion_500000_readers_zoe_quinn/ https://www.listnook.com/user/XavierMendel https://www.listnook.com/user/Deimorz https://www.listnook.com/r/Drama/comments/2eging/xaviermendel_gets_booted_as_a_mod_from_rgames/ https://www.listnook.com/r/undelete/comments/2f4e56/3rd_video_in_the_series_about_corruption_in_games/ck5uptt

Qzy Sep 7, 2014 +83

I'm just sitting here in my living room, laughing as all the skeletons comes out of the listnook-closet. Is there a listnook-alternative supported by admins with higher standard in morals? Ie like piratebay? Pirate bay might be illegal, but at least the owners stand by their point of view.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +75

[removed]

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +15

[He already said go f*** yourselves, didn't you hear him?](http://www.listnook.com/r/Oppression/comments/2e0xm0/you_think_the_20000_comments_removed_in_rgaming/cjv139c?context=3)

ecafyelims Sep 7, 2014 +305

Someone else posted this: https://imgur.com/a/f4WDf

305

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +82

That's rather entertaining >Our site functions by linking content to everyone else's stuff, but don't you *dare* come here via a link from another site

bigboss2014 Sep 7, 2014 +114

Lol, not "organic" so all the celebrities that announce their AMA and link it on twitter should get banned instantly.

114

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +71

Haven't you learned anything? Celebrities are above Listnook's rules. All about that $$$.

Greed4656 Sep 7, 2014 +70

Careful. You could get shadowbanned for that.

DirtyWooster Sep 7, 2014 +69

Are you going to ban other stolen pic subs? ~~Or subs that portray illegal acts?~~ Edit: - I concede that portrayal of an act is different from the act itself. However the legality of the content of many of the as-yet-not-banned subs can be debated. /u/alienth responded below quite comprehensively, if you're looking for an anwer.

Amablue Sep 7, 2014 +56

> Or subs that portray illegal acts? I don't see why they would unless the images of the illegal act are themselves illegal. Pictures of someone smoking weed, for example, are not illegal in any way that I am aware of.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +1732

1732

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +150

150

DontYouMeanHAHAHAHA Sep 7, 2014 +20

So you're agreeing with the commenter. It's not that it's a new moral low for listnook, it's that legal action had to be taken.

PfalzDIII Sep 7, 2014 +1144

Have you checked out this: https://imgur.com/a/f4WDf Basically during the Gaming-Journalism Listnook Admins participated in heavy censoring and lying. But hey "Free Speech". Here is the related listnook-thread: http://www.listnook.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2fdcm7/censorship_on_listnook_shadowbanning_and_drama/ Funny how all the censoring resulted in a full-on Streisand effect.

1144

LordMondando Sep 7, 2014 +423

Not to mention the dozens of sublistnooks that regularly dox, regularly use illegally gotten content, or in the case of some of the weird sex with animals ones are just illegal. It's almost like listnook has systemic problems that are not being delt with unless someones legal team on retainer gets involved.

423

blackhole885 Sep 7, 2014 +56

cupcake the admin has been shadow banning people to censor things? NO WAY?! (isnt this like the third time now?)

Pancakes1 Sep 7, 2014 +609

Seriously. I'd rather listnook represents itself honestly rather than antagonize their reader base by thinking were morons.

609

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +12

/u/alienth, can you explain how this situation ever got that far? Listnook rule #3 is pretty damn straightforward: >Don't post personal information. Can't you argue that leaked photos that are an essential part of a person's private life and were never intended for public distribution completely violates this rule with no questions asked anyway? The double standard here is horrible. What's the point of banning dox and yet allowing stolen content to be posted like that?

vikingphilosopher Sep 7, 2014 +15

/u/alienth, thank you for explaining the reasons behind your decisions regarding the banning of /r/TheFappening. On this point at least, everyone--whether they agree or disagree with the decision--should be glad that you took the time to even explain things from your point of view as the system admin of Listnook. I would encourage everyone here on Listnook to keep this in mind when responding. Please be respectful. None of the Listnook leadership had to explain anything. They could have ignored us. But they didn't. That should say something. They care about the community, and are trying to help us understand their decisions. Thank you.

4698458973 Sep 7, 2014 +1883

This was a *much* better message than the blog post. > Many community members were understandably angered at our lack of action or response, and made that known in various ways. ... This nightmare of the weekend made myself and many of my coworkers feel pretty awful. I had an obvious responsibility to keep the site up and running, but seeing that all of my efforts were due to a huge number of people scrambling to look at stolen private photos didn't sit well with me personally, to say the least. We hit new traffic milestones, ones which I'd be ashamed to share publicly. ... Still, in the moment, seeing what we were seeing happen, it was hard to see much merit to that viewpoint. ... You guys have an identity problem here. You *want* Listnook to be a particular sort of site, but you aren't willing to *make* it that site. Wanting it and wishing for it isn't going to make you any happier when it isn't. Fundamentally, you and other folks at Listnook are saddled with being admins for a site that bothers you on a regular basis. Do you really think that won't affect your enthusiasm for the job, or for the site? You say, > ...we feel it is necessary to maintain as neutral a platform as possible... But, why? There would be a lot of difficult problems to solve if you were to change your policy (what topics should be banned, what are the rules and guidelines and conditions...), but so far that discussion, if you've had it internally, hasn't been made public. No reason has been given for, "Listnook has to be as free as 4chan." And the thing is, if you were happier with Listnook because it was that free, then that would be a sufficient enough reason. But you're not. r/thefappening was *tremendously* popular. It wasn't just a minor portion of your userbase. So, in your position, I don't think I could say, "Well, it was just a few bad apples, I really do like most of what the site is about." Listnook has had this problem for years. It tries to attract really nice people into administrative jobs, presenting Listnook as a place for gift-sharing and donations and political change, while simultaneously saddling them with a community full of a lot of really nasty content and then tying their hands to do anything about it. That's where the blog post really, really fell flat: *it was a lecture written for an audience that you don't have.* At some point you've really gotta decide what kind of site you want to be. If it's going to continue to be completely hands-off with rare exceptions, then you've gotta decide whether that's the kind of site you want to be responsible for. (and I don't want to be *too* much of a hypocrite here, so I'll confess: I totally followed that sublistnook. A lot. I'm not sad that it's gone, but the blog post didn't make me re-examine my life choices, either.)

1883

jaxxil_ Sep 7, 2014 +276

>> ...we feel it is necessary to maintain as neutral a platform as possible... >But, why? Here's one thing I'll say: I was on digg when the HD-DVD master key was leaked. In response to legal pressure, the admins started to remove posts related to that, as it wasn't immediately clear if the site would be liable for massive infringement if they didn't. This lead to the userbase rioting, and postings of the key absolutely continuously in all sorts of inventive ways. Basically, the Streisand effect on steroids. What I'm saying is internet communities don't handle censorship very well. Taking action *might* help, but it might also have caused the photo's to have dominated even more in an angry response. Hands off is the easiest way to make sure the internet doesn't come crashing down on you with a vengeance, highlighting the exact thing you wanted to remove.

276

buzzkill_aldrin Sep 7, 2014 +173

>What I'm saying is internet communities don't handle censorship very well. Apparently internet communities also don't handle the [paper bag](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YrWiwUM3FA&autoplay=1) very well. DVD encryption civil disobedience aside, it seems like the people aren't getting what the admins are saying: "Look, we don't like everything you guys do here, but we'll tolerate it as long as it's not blatantly illegal and you don't attract attention from outsiders who can end up shutting us down."

173

fatterSurfer Sep 7, 2014 +37

> it seems like the people aren't getting what the admins are saying: "Look, we don't like everything you guys do here, but we'll tolerate it as long as it's not blatantly illegal and you don't attract attention from outsiders who can end up shutting us down." Exactly my sentiments. The few, and I really do mean few, legitimate critiques in here of how this went down focus on how, exactly, you handle the situation when something does inevitably meet those criteria and cannot be tolerated. But for the most part, it's just people complaining about inaction against things that offend them and, like it or not, making those kinds of judgement calls is extremely dangerous and fundamentally antithetical to an open platform.

otakuman Sep 7, 2014 +19

Lol, I just remembered the image with like ten hex numbers in perfect sequence and the middle one saying "REDACTED". It was hilarious.

AnArmyOfWombats Sep 7, 2014 +6

Which matters more: the internet [users] crashing down on you, potentially losing page views, or a lawsuit (or ~~two~~ hundred) that will bankrupt or severely hinder your company? I'd rather them have a temporarily pissed user base than be in financial peril, limiting or killing the site. Oh, look, [a kitty] (http://i.imgur.com/lNASxPl.jpg )

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +91

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +48

caligari87 Sep 7, 2014 +12

> The way it's being presented makes it seem like they don't care about the listnook community, just the users that agree with them personally and enjoy the things they are expected to enjoy. See, I'm not getting that at all. Obviously the admins don't like \/r/picsofdeadkids or whatever, but they're keeping hands off because they feel free posting is better than heavy handed censorship. Is it so hard to comprehend that they banned TheFappening and Jailbait for purely legal and self-preservation reasons because of the high profile; but somehow they're a) out of touch or b) shadowy despotic overlords just because they also feel compelled to say they were disgusted by it?

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +6

I was mainly referring to the way they acted about how they wanted /r/all and the default subs to be. To me it appeared as though they don't want the community to decide what is valuable content but they want the community to agree with them as to what valuable content is and if you don't agree then you might as well no be in the community. As for TheFappening and Jailbait I sort of disagree. Jailbait I understand, they were using pornographic pictures of minors and that needs to stop but The Fappening wasn't that clear. Listnook wan't hosting the images, just linking and that is totally legal (many others have posted how just by removing thumbnails on The Fappening they would not be in trouble for hosting images without legal permission.) Also the only other legal thing they mentioned which was that they heard that one of the girls in the pictures, McKayla Maroney, was underage. I would understand action here if there was any evidence to it. Initially, Maroney was denying that the pictures were even of her and only started saying that she was underage in them after it appeared as though no one believed it wasn't her. Any young adult can say that they were underage in a photo, if that is taken without a grain of salt then we could start taking down all p*** related sublistnooks. Now I understand that listnook is a business and they do have the right to change and influence their business. But the biggest issue is not that they took down The Fappening, but they way they went about it and their lack of consistency in enforcing their newly found morals. If they had just said that they don't want that stuff on listnook and enforced it all over then they would be getting a lot less c***.

KiwiBuckle Sep 7, 2014 +123

I'd give you gold if I weren't so pissed at Listnook right now. But I am and I want to thank you for eloquently summing up many feelings I and likely a lot of other users have, I hope the flood of informed and well written comments in this thread will get some attention to clean this site up - not from stuff that 14 year olds to 82 year olds want to diddly do it to but the scummier parts that detract from listnook being a tool for learning and communication.

123

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +81

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +512

Hey, I got a question. Why are all my replies to this thread being deleted? I'll try a third time, because there was absolutely nothing rule-breaking in the post: __________________ Y'all really need to drop the grandstanding and euphemisms. Here's the thing. You've got your neckbearded Voltaire mask, complete with the clown nose and everything. "Sir, I detest what you say, but I would *die* for your right to *wakka, wakka, honk, honk!*" It's a fun prop. You can either keep it on or you can take it off, but you gotta choose, bucko. If you decide to pick and choose on an improvisational basis depending on when it's convenient for site revenues then expect to rightly be called a bunch of f****** hypocrites. You have stood firmly behind the assorted sewer spawn of reactionaries and bigots who made this site their home and command post. Whole place is infested with them and nobody wants to take out the trash. It's being overrun by a stampede of gutter-dwelling white supremacists and misogynists, harassing marginalized groups here in droves. Communities and mods [have been practically begging you](http://www.listnook.com/r/blackladies/comments/2ejg1b/we_have_a_racist_user_problem_and_listnook_wont/), for years, to at least let them filter out brigades of white supremacists without putting their forums on lock-down. Instead, you [ban the people](http://np.listnook.com/r/SublistnookDrama/comments/2eojvn/moderator_of_rblackladies_shadowbanned_but_why/ck1fs9q) rocking the boat by pointing out the hypocrisy and then you make *proud* statements about how listnook, in its uncompromising bravery and liberal wisdom, *must* give the lynch mobs a platform, a podium and a megaphone, all funded by the users who have to be subjected to it. So, when thread after race-baiting thread on forums with millions of subscribers is filled to the gills with thousands of racist fuckwits sermonizing how they should "lynch all the chimps" and management stands by proudly nodding at all this free speech it's fostering, ***don't bother turning around to scream unconscionable moral outrage at a Hollywood sex tape***: >While current US law does not prohibit linking to stolen materials, we deplore the theft of these images and we do not condone their widespread distribution. \- /u/yishan The obvious conclusion here is that you decided to deny a platform to people invading the privacy of celebrities who might soon change their minds about promoting your company. Good times. Should have been done right away, in my opinion. Now, for the other matter. Why do far *worse* and *far more deplorable* offenders deserve that same platform without eliciting your indignation? What is the criteria for expression deserving that indignation, by the way? Perhaps, [like the CEO says](http://np.listnook.com/r/TheoryOfListnook/comments/1hefwq/what_impact_on_listnook_will_banning_the_racist/cau2npc), people of color should just fork over some more money to be considered? Clown nose on or clown nose off? Pick *one*.

512

LatrodectusVariolus Sep 7, 2014 +1245

> we feel it is necessary to maintain as neutral a platform as possible, Then why did you ban a blackladies mod? If you're keeping hands off then why are you banning individual users that do things like call out the admins for refusing to help them deal with people brigading their subs and posting dead mutilated black children? Is it because she was gaining traction with online news sources picking up her story? If your policy is hands off, why does that not extend to users like /u/DualPollux and Swore? Why are the admins picking and choosing who to target? Why does Unidan get to create a new account that he publicly links to his old account but when users that point out racism and bigotry on this site do the same thing their new accounts are immediately banned? It takes legal action for you to get involved and remove stolen pictures from listnook but you're more than willing to swoop in and get your hands dirty to ban people who say "Hey, there's racism and people admitting to r*** (then giving out the victims username) on listnook!" If you want to be hands off, be hands off. But be *consistent.* Don't say "we stay neutral" when the site is in uproar over stolen pictures then ban a blackladies mod by saying she's interfering with the culture of specific sublistnooks. What interfered with the culture more? TheFappening or /u/DualPollux? (And I don't mean *you* specifically. I mean *you* the admins.)

1245

0l01o1ol0 Sep 7, 2014 +269

>banning individual users that do things like call out the admins for refusing to help them deal with people brigading their subs and posting dead mutilated black children? Jesus, the more I hear about the back-room stuff at listnook the worse it sounds. Is there some kind of site or sublistnook that keeps track of Admin actions like banning subs, changing mods, etc?

269

ImAWizardYo Sep 7, 2014 +11

>Is there some kind of site or sublistnook that keeps track of Admin actions like banning subs, changing mods, etc? Already created a [mascot](http://i.imgur.com/KCCnOBm.jpg) for the new forum. Edit: [Ver. 2.0](http://i.imgur.com/jNL0XLw.jpg)

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +114

It'd probably get shadow banned

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +143

Yes, absolutely. The handling of this was completely fumbled by the admins. There's a clear bias to who and what they shut down and it has nothing to do with morality like they claim.

143

Warle Sep 7, 2014 +86

> nothing to do with morality like they claim. That became very obvious very early on. Who else would go about banning /r/thefappening while leaving things like /r/cutedeadgirls and /r/rapingwomen to continue its existence on the site?

SaidTheCanadian Sep 7, 2014 +3831

/u/alienth I appreciated your post much more than the Blog post, which smacked of doublespeak given that it did not directly address the banned sublistnooks (it even seemed to suggest that they *weren't banned* for the reasons cited). The reasons which you have provided are, in my mind, understandable and possibly even sensible. Fair enough. **However I would like to ask one thing:** Please provide a timely, **public log** (or an automated sublistnook) which lists all sublistnooks have been banned and a detailed, clear (maybe even thoughtful) explanation as to why they were banned. The mass confusion over why these particular sublistnooks were banned shouldn't be repeated. And if Listnook is truly to be a *platform* that's *open* in any way, it needs **transparency** when (heavy handed) actions such as these are taken. **I don't want to be part of a community where community voices are silenced without meaningful notice or explanation.** (No one really does like that *secret police* feeling...) The blog post certainly was not meaningful in regard to providing meaningful notice nor explanation. I agree that "free speech" has limits, but the *prosecution* of those limits needs to be *public* in order that it not be seen as simply a higher level of *manipulation* of the discourse that occurs on this site. As for you, get some rest: it's Sunday.

3831

ArmoredCavalry Sep 7, 2014 +494

> Please provide a timely, public log (or an automated sublistnook) which lists all sublistnooks have been banned and a detailed, clear (maybe even thoughtful) explanation as to why they were banned. Thank you, this is my single largest complaint about this site. I had a sublistnook for my deal site (/r/CheapShark), and it was randomly banned one day (after 2+ years) without any reason given. As far as I can tell, it was not breaking any site rule. Even if it was, it would have been nice to have some warning so I could have fixed the issue. I have messaged the admins about it multiple times, but gotten 0 response. These last couples posts about the admins wanting listnook to be an open community that caters to what its users want, doesn't mean much when you go around banning sublistnooks and not giving any reason or explanation for it... I still gets messages and emails from users wondering what happened to /r/CheapShark, and I don't have any answer to give them. I'm still waiting for an explanation myself (which the admins don't seem to want to give)...

494

249ba36000029bbe9749 Sep 7, 2014 +2278

Or better yet, just leave a detailed explanation for the closure on the "banned" page users get to when they try to hit the now defunct sublistnook.

2278

Unacceptable_Lemons Sep 7, 2014 +134

This is a fantastic suggestion. When a user attempts to access a banned Sublistnook, an explanation should be found on the page they end up on. For obvious bans, the explanation could be something simple, for more complex situations like these, a more detained breakdown could be posted.

134

mike10010100 Sep 7, 2014 +237

This. If it's worth taking the time to consider banning, just leave a note as to why you're doing it. Simple enough. It clarifies why and makes certain people aren't left in the dark and confused.

237

SpaceSteak Sep 7, 2014 +256

Transparency should indeed be part of any content "government" platform (see the original blog), and it's amazing that it's not.

256

InbredNoBanjo Sep 7, 2014 +21

Excellent point. Profit corporations may have some justifications for keeping their actions secret. For example, protecting trade secrets. But since Listnook management is *de facto* a government of a large community-of-choice, and even *expressly* a government, having taken that position itself, transparency becomes an obligation. I realize that implementing "complete transparency" in this context has obstacles. But whenever an organization is faced with a huge onslaught of angry customers/citizens/whatever, in *any* context, no matter what the underlying cause, complete forthright transparency and honesty will help, and anything less will ultimately hurt and seem like manipulation.

ImNotJesus Sep 7, 2014 +4575

Here's why I'm angry. You're doing the **exact same** thing you do every time there's bad press. Deal with it at the last possible moment (like /r/jailbait) once there's bad press forcing you to do so. Then you play it off like some moral revelation and use free speech as the reason why it doesn't set a precedent. It is **identical** to what always happens. [Here is the blog post](http://www.listnook.com/r/blog/comments/pmj7f/a_necessary_change_in_policy/) from when you banned /r/jailbait. Note the exact same thing. "We've decided that it's time for a change" that happens to coincide with [Anderson Cooper doing a story about it on CNN](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_Listnook_communities#.2Fr.2Fjailbait). To be clear, I understand *why* you're doing it. I understand that a lot of companies do the same which is **totally fine**. Just don't then make a blog post about how wonderful free speech is. If the blog post said "We actually wanted to keep allowing them but got too many notices from lawyers for that to work so we had to ban them" that would be *fine* by me. The doublepseak and hypocrisy is what's annoying me. You can't take the moral highground on this when you've let /r/photoplunder stay open for however long it has. This is just what happens when your stance is that anything goes. If you allow sublistnooks devoted to sex with dogs, **of course** people will be outraged when you take down pictures of naked celebrities. It would be impossible for that to not seem capricious. If you allow sublistnooks like /r/niggers, **of course** they're going to be assholes who gang up to brigade. The fine users of /r/jailbait are sharing kiddy p***? What a **shocking** revelation. The point is, you can't let the inmates run the asylum and then get shocked when someone smears shit on the wall. Stand up for standards for a change. Actually make a stance for what you want listnook to be. You'll piss off some people but who cares? They're the shitty people you don't want anyway. Instead you're just alienating the good users who are sick of all of the shit on the walls.

4575

RedditsRagingId Sep 7, 2014 +693

Regarding sublistnooks like /r/photoplunder, listnook’s own cofounder Alexis Ohanian (/u/kn0thing) has said [it’s inevitable that this kind of content will surface here](http://youtu.be/OXZYvrue1BE?t=2m22s): > As long as what’s going on is legal, there’s nothing we can do to effectively police [listnook]. Because these things will always continue to exist on the internet, because they’ll always continue to exist in humanity… And although the “victims” of these leaks might complain and threaten legal action, he says, it’s ultimately [no one’s fault but their own](http://youtu.be/OXZYvrue1BE?t=2m40s): > **Anytime they take an image and put it in a digital format**—whether it’s an email to one person, whether it’s in a tweet, whether it’s on Facebook, whether it’s an MMS—**they should assume that it is now public content. They should assume it is everywhere.** And that’s the warning that parents need to be giving their kids, and that’s the useful thing CNN could have reported on, instead of making up a bunch of jibber-jabber about listnook.

693

MercuryCobra Sep 7, 2014 +17

Jesus what a d***. "There's no way we can properly police not illegal content! Y'know, other than policing it. But since it's all the victims' fault anyway and that sounds like a lot of work, we're just gonna say f*** it and pretend this is a morally defensible position."

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +93

See those people aren't famous enough to warrant multiple blog posts. JLaw bobs leak = Internet Felony Random Girl B**** Leak = Who Cares Edit: Bobs

HitManatee Sep 7, 2014 +69

The worst part is, JLaw isn't going to be harmed in any meaningful way by these leaks. She is still going to make millions of dollars every year and everyone is still going to love her. Now take the 19 year old girl whose phone synced with photobucket without her knowing, who took the pictures to see what her body looked like because she is self-conscious. Her pictures get leaked she is bloody likely to kill herself or at least feel like her life is "ruined" for a while. Maybe she will drop out of school. Who does listnook care about more? Sick.

emmster Sep 7, 2014 +38

Somehow, during all this DMCA activity that they could "barely handle," they still managed to shadow ban /u/DualPollux for going into a thread on the biggest racist sub on this site and telling them to stop posting pictures of mutilated black children to /r/blackladies. They were blatantly brigading the sub she runs, but her getting angry is what deserves a ban? Does this free speech end at her (completely justified) anger? Is this really the kind of site you're trying to run, admin team? One where we protect white supremacists and are super sad to lose child p********** and photographic invasions of privacy, but we sure will ban people for expressing anger over being constantly spammed with gore and racism because of this misguided concept that harassment, invasion of privacy, and hate fall under "free speech?" I've been here a long time, folks. I've gotten the opportunity to help take care of some of my favorite spaces on listnook. I've met some incredible people, some of whom have become my friends in real life. This site has the potential to be amazing. But that potential is not going to be reached by pandering to the worst elements.

nittyit Sep 7, 2014 +2018

Send anderson cooper a link to: /r/cutefemalecorpses /r/CandidFashionPolice /r/greatapes /r/whiterights /r/sexyabortions and see what Listnook does. edit: took out a sub link by request

2018

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +1590

Don't forget /r/selfharmpics which according to this >1. Actions which cause or are likely to cause imminent physical danger (e.g. suicides, ***instructions for self-harm***, or specific threats) clearly violates the rules. **edit**: Some users are replying to this saying that it doesn't instruct how to hurt one's self and that looking at the pictures also helps others *not* to hurt themselves by seeing the aftermath and the stories. To that I say, with posts that have titles such as "Only cure for panic attacks" and "I decorated" it will cause people to take comfort in this sort of escape and continue to hurt themselves. That along with posts that try to highlight scars as "beautiful" are going to make things worse. If they wanted to help them they'd redirect the sub to one that helps people deal with depression and self mutilation through continuous counseling, not offer quick and easy attention so that they'd continue to repeat the cycle. The first part of the rule says "Actions which cause or are likely to cause imminent physical danger" and what that sub does is just that. **edit 2**: I'm not here to argue whether the sub is healthy or not or if it's moral or not, what the point of my comment was and is is that the admins are being incredibly hypocritical. If they say they're taking a moral stance and post clear guidelines as to what those stances entail they need to be strict about it. Otherwise they should simply admit that they will take actions against subs only when legal actions are taken against them.

1590

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +485

485

cnutnuggets Sep 7, 2014 +91

They're not necessarily trying to be hypocrites, but more like they are trying to take the cake and eat it too. They want mainstream acceptance on the backs of the h******* internet demographic who are responsible for most of the popular trending contents. Unfortunately you can never have the two and this is proving it. You either lose the good content or lose the mass appeal.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +867

867

Redebo Sep 7, 2014 +113

How can JLaw claim copyright on those photos as they clearly were not taken BY her?

113

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +248

248

KungFuJoe Sep 7, 2014 +75

kinda like how they banned /r/creepshots because of media backlash but /r/creepshots1 and /r/CandidFashionPolice are still up and running... I don't mind /r/thefappening being banned, but if you're gonna ban things based on principle, you need to keep those principles to the same standard everywhere... They *are* only doing this because of media backlash.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +829

Thisthisthis. F****** hypocrites. The only reason they stopped it is because they had to because of technical and legal reasons. 4chan, arguably one of the most free-speech communities, has moral grounds. Yet listnook thinks that morals interfere with free speech. Well guess what? Admins of (big) subs simply delete whatever they don't like, and there are many other things in the way of true free speech on listnook. So basically the true cesspool of the internet is listnook. No free speech and no morals. Edit: deleted my account, not going to contribute to, visit or keep on an account supporting this site in any way. Decide for yourself.

829

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +1761

Your post came across as very sincere, and convinced me that you don't actually know why you banned the sublistnook. **So let me simplify things here.** Position 1: "We're banning the sublistnook because of DMCA requests/legal issues for which listnook can be held liable." - Nope. Turn off thumbnails, and you're A-ok. Position 2: "We're banning the sublistnook because of the insane amount of work involved in managing it." - Nope. Turn off thumbnails, auto-direct DMCA takedown notices to imgur/wherever, and put your feet up. Position 3: "We're banning the sublistnook because of the morally questionable content." - Nope, as others have stated there's much worse out there. Position 4: "We're banning the sublistnook because we want listnook to have a certain image in the public. This sublistnook and its popularity are damaging that image." - ??? Edit: formatting

1761

CoinValidator Sep 7, 2014 +130

> Nope. Turn off thumbnails, and you're A-ok. Many subs that popped up after the ban did this. They're all banned now still.

130

Deflatermice Sep 7, 2014 +282

"Our website that relies on people visiting it had too many people visiting it so we shut the thing down."

282

HitManatee Sep 7, 2014 +254

This is my favorite position. "We received too many visitors to our website." How can website admins say that with a straight face? You are the 50th~ most visited website on the internet. Every person on earth should be able to visit your website. Could you imagine Google saying "hey stop searching for the nfl related things around the Superbowl thanx guis."

254

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +34

While I agree with your analogy, the issue seems to be that they received a huge influx of traffic that they weren't ready for. I believe he mentions that the traffic levels reached a new high, and when running a website (even one this popular) you only have the ability to handle so much traffic and to scale so quickly, so it seems like the amount of traffic was so much higher than they anticipated encountering that they simply didn't have the infrastructure in place to handle it.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +161

> This sublistnook and its popularity ~~are damaging that image~~ have served their purpose and outgrown their usefulness to our bottom line

161

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +32

This is the real kicker. The leaked photos are pretty much old f****** news now. That horse is out of the barn and halfway to town by now.

Dunka07 Sep 7, 2014 +70

This should be higher up. I've read everything down to here and this is the simplest way things have been summed up.

junkit33 Sep 7, 2014 +32

There is another option, in that they just don't know what they're doing. Which, if you look at the history of how Listnook has ever handled any kind of large site issue, is not surprising.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +17

Geohump Sep 7, 2014 +35

## Meta-pattern recognition: Listnook's actual policy is, as plainly derived from its actions rather than its words: --- We believe in and support free speech, until such a point as we determine that said participation in certain kinds of socially-disaproved-speech will be harmful to Listnook as a whole. That we shut down as soon as we recognize the damage. --- End of my view of what Listnook's Meta-Pattern is, regarding free speech. ##What It Means: The US Bill of Rights obligates ONLY Governmental entities, (towns, schools etc), to *not interfere with the speech of others.* Private entities have no obligation to provide free speech to others. As an internet user since 1981 and a fan of the US Bill of Rights, I recognize that free speech is a good thing and that Listnook, as a private entity, is not obligated by the US Bill of Rights to provide anyone with any free speech. **Regardless, I am grateful to Listnook** for the extent that they do support a free speech platform for the world, and I further want them to continue to do so, so I regard their actions taken to protect their platform as reasonable and necessary for Listnook's long term continuation. Some speech is much more important than other speech. ~~Jonathan~~ Aaron Schwartz comes to mind. Victims of violence all over the world come to mind. n*** pics of celebs, not so much. In memory and respect to all victims who have been silenced everywhere. Let the rest of us raise our voices to speak for them. Edit: had name wrong

rutterkin Sep 7, 2014 +308

You obviously did this to comply with legal requirements, so why are you hamming up your reasons with all this "deplorable act of flagrant privacy violation" language? That makes you sound like CNN and it certainly adds to the misconception(?) that you are kissing celebrity ass. I believe what you are saying but it would be much more persuasive without all the rhetorically charged language. Especially since violations of privacy occur on Listnook all the time. Remember the woman with the facial hair? What about the people who get posted in sublistnooks like /r/cringepics? A lot of what people find so irritating about this situation is the whole idea of celebrities somehow having ascended untouchable status and that actions that affect them are more of an outrage than ones that affect ordinary people. Your finger-wagging at the people who leaked these photos makes it seem like you don't understand that or aren't sympathetic to it.

308

ThrustVectoring Sep 7, 2014 +17

If you want people to believe you took down the fappening for technical and legal reasons, you shouldn't inject your moral judgements about the content into the discussion. That just makes it look like the technical and legal stuff is a smokescreen for the real reason why it got taken down - specifically, that you don't like it.

Darkdumbledorf Sep 7, 2014 +6

Jesus. F-ing Christ, thank you. This is the core of why this pisses me off. I understand they have a responsibility to protect the site legally as best they can, but how DARE the people making their living from the exchange of content (much of which could be called equally "deplorable") wag their fingers and be all holier than thou to the very people providing them that living. Frankly, the OP here really makes me nervous about the future and direction of Listnook, the level of hubris is stunning. I believe this may be the beginning of a 'Digg' style meltdown.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +1191

1191

alien122 Sep 7, 2014 +27

~~dacvak(i think?)~~deimorz said the thumbnails can't truly be disabled. EDIT: Actually I think it was deimorz who said it. EDIIT: [it was deimorz](http://www.listnook.com/r/blog/comments/2foivo/every_man_is_responsible_for_his_own_soul/ckb95yl)

sp0radic Sep 7, 2014 +629

Yeah... is the thumbnail image really the crux of this whole thing? And is this obvious solution not an option?

629

LacquerCritic Sep 7, 2014 +543

Did you read the whole post? It was the DMCA requests - which they got regardless of thumbnails, and they would still have to respond and redirect to imgur or whatever other actual host was being used - combined with constant reposts of child p***, combined with malicious links being posted, combined with massive traffic that was causing site wide problems. It sounds like short of hiring a second set of staff to just manage the above issues, they were overwhelmed and banned the subs because they couldn't manage it otherwise.

543

cgimusic Sep 7, 2014 +282

Once thumbnails were disabled it doesn't seem that difficult to set up an auto-response for all DMCA requests with links to TheFappening that tells the content owners to contact the image host. As an aside, are these really expensive lawyers really so incapable that they can't even work out what site they need to contact to have an image taken down?

LacquerCritic Sep 7, 2014 +189

Anyone can put together a DMCA request quite easily, not just "expensive lawyers" - they might have been coming from managers, PR firms, etc. as well. And I imagine that lawyers would rather spam anything that has touched the pictures with the hopes of more content removed rather than just say, "oh, well, the links are there but I suppose they're not actually hosting them".

189

sp0radic Sep 7, 2014 +126

So... why should listnook have to play messenger to image hosts? If they disabled thumbnails, took a clear stance on the underage issue (which has been done afaik) I don't see why there has to be this huge deal about it. Definitely provided for an entertaining few weekends.

126

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +52

Yeah /r/thefappening had a big sticky telling everyone not to post underage pictures and the mods of the sub enforced that. It's not like there was CP everywhere. Malicious links were also not much of an issue because the mods had a whitelist of what domains were allowed to be posted.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +2199

"If the same thing had happened to anyone you hold dear, it'd make you sick to your stomach with grief and anger." What about the people in /r/photoplunder? What about /r/beatingwomen2? Thousands of pictures of women (amongst other things) are leaked and posted everyday on this site, and the only reason they are not banned and removed is because they don't have the bank accounts to take legal action. Edit: Obligatory thanks for gold, stranger!

2199

xGray3 Sep 7, 2014 +418

I tend to stay in the good part of Listnook. I wasn't aware that /r/beatingwomen2 existed, although I had known sublistnooks of that sort do exist. Out of curiosity I visited it and now I feel sick to my stomach. I don't know how I feel about the idea of Listnook supporting free speech on every level anymore. I don't know that there is any way I can justify being okay with the existence of /r/beatingwomen2 or /r/rapingwomen. I mean, allowing things like racism or sexism to exist on Listnook is one thing. Those are at least legal and are limited to words. But to allow pictures of violence like r*** and domestic abuse? I cannot bring myself to consider free speech important enough to allow such things. Those go beyond free speech and into a whole new realm of bad. It makes me even more sad to think that there was such an uproar over n*** pictures of celebrities, but nobody even talks about the girls in those sublistnooks. In the end it comes down to money and popularity. I'm having one of those moments where I'm just really disappointed in the world. Edit: Changed some poorly worded sentences.

418

pseudopseudonym Sep 7, 2014 +288

I'm leaving those links a nice shade of blue. Jesus.

288

Lester11111 Sep 8, 2014 +25

I couldn't resist, and now, I'm just totally confused. These sub's are satire? People spend their time on /r/rapingwomen for fun? But not for r***? Or for r***? I don't get the internet anymore. I'm going home.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +162

It **does not take a bank account or lawyer to file a DMCA request and ask listnook to remove content**. This isn't unique to listnook, either. Most websites comply with DMCA requests. Here's all you need to do to send a DMCA request. **It is literally a single page sent to listnook staff**. A quick google search gave [~~this page~~](http://sarafhawkins.com/how-to-file-a-dmca-takedown-notice/) /edit: it was hacked, google cache page [here](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bTdv6CNsU-AJ:sarafhawkins.com/how-to-file-a-dmca-takedown-notice/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au) has the content. there's nothing illegal about this content. So you follow those steps and then use http://www.listnook.com/contact/ to pick the best method in contacting listnook staff/admins. Q: "But what if listnook fights the DMCA?" A: First, ask yourself, "would listnook spend resources in fighting my DMCA?" I think you'll find the answer is often: no. If someone claimed to own a picture that was posted on /r/beatingwomen2 and filed a DMCA request to have it removed, do you honestly believe listnook staff will spend money+time in fighting your request? Isn't it much more reasonable to just accept that the claim is valid, remove it, and no one would blame them for removing it? You might say this opens the door to DMCA abuses, and you may be right. *But flaws in the DMCA process are not listnook's problem*. Listnook will only do what is minimally required of them. If the DMCA process was improved, listnook will still comply with them. If the DMCA process was entirely *removed* from the laws that bind listnook as a business, then listnook won't comply with them anymore. Fixing DMCA's is a fight for another battlefield. (though if you wanted to have a discussion about it on listnook, you can do so in places like /r/stand, /r/netpolitics, or any place that has similar topics. EFF and ACLU are organizations that are very familiar with the DMCA.) Also, users can downvote, report, and unsubscribe from content they don't like. The admins don't want to be in a place where **their morality** is deciding what sublistnooks stay or go. They want **us** to decide what stays. Have they achieved this "hands-off" approach? Most would say no, but their intent is to do a hands-off approach, and it is up to us to hold them to that task. If listnook doesn't have the tools to let users do what is necessary, then [we can come up with them ourselves](https://github.com/listnook/listnook). If listnook doesn't accept the tools that the community wants, then we can build another listnook that will.

162

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +69

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +60

> No average person has such capability. You're absolutely right. But we also know that no average person would have had their n**** make as big of a splash on listnook as the celebrity photos did. You might say this is a preposterous statement to make, but the evidence already exists: there are TONS of sublistnooks where the consent of the person isn't strictly given, yet their picture is being seen by hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands. But the number of people who saw the celebrity pictures were in the **tens of millions** because they hit the front page. So what do we do about instances where someone who isn't a celebrity gets their picture posted without their consent, and wants it taken down? They report it, file a DMCA, and/or plead their case to the public. Are these not "good enough"? Then we as listnook users need to come up with a way that works. If most of listnook's sublistnooks are moderated by decent people, who accept requests to take down pictures, then this process is streamlined and made super simple. **If you, as an enjoyer of consensual naked pictures, wants to look at consensual naked pictures, then you should subscribe to those sublistnooks, and upvote/downvote appropriately. If you don't want a sublistnook or a piece of content to be seen by more people, it is up to you to unsubscribe, downvote, report, or do whatever you feel is right.** If the majority of listnook finds the celebrity pic leak deplorable, then the majority can control whether or not this happens again. If the number of people who want more celebrity naked pictures outnumbers the number of people who **don't** want celebrity naked pictures, then it is up to the users to plead their case, ask listnook to implement changes, and then accept or reject listnook as a website worthy of visiting. The basic idea is this: listnook staff **doesn't want to be the moral police for what gets posted - and this is what you want out of an open-source transparent website with an involved community**. Celebrity leaks will stop on this site as soon as the number of downvotes outweighs the number of upvotes. And this is true of any piece of content.

Spandian Sep 7, 2014 +18

> If someone claimed to own a picture that was posted on /r/beatingwomen2 and filed a DMCA request to have it removed, do you honestly believe listnook staff will spend money+time in fighting your request? Isn't it much more reasonable to just accept that the claim is valid, remove it, and no one would blame them for removing it? > You might say this opens the door to DMCA abuses, and you may be right. Please note: knowingly filing a false DMCA notice is a crime. Large corporations regularly get away with it, but if you make a habit of abusing the DMCA (even for a good cause), it probably won't end well.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +67

We're not "confused", we're pissed. Listnook has tolerated the most base and vile sorts of racism, sexism, religious bigotry, posts about self-harm, posts about bestiality, posts admitting to crimes, and *even leaked n**** of normal people*, deflecting criticism of them with "we don't censor". Which is only a meaningful defense as long as you hold to it absolutely. Now the people in the pictures have money, and access to the non-internet media... and lo and behold suddenly there are rules!

Laughing-At-Humanity Sep 7, 2014 +3

In an interview recently conducted with an ex Listnook moderator, details have emerged that suggests initial speculation on content manipulation within Listnook.com for the purpose of profit for 3rd parties to be not only true, but common place in practice among certain members of its moderation team. Although the source of these accusations has declined to comment on specific cases of such behaviour, IndieJuice has been informed that content manipulation for 3rd party profit is part of a much larger issue within Listnook’s internal posting and user relationship structure. The extent to which is currently unknown. Original allegations of content manipulation arose from members of Listnook’s own community as part of an online controversy surrounding allegations of nepotism within the video game industry. Such allegations were dismissed by a member of Listnook’s administration team as the work of another online community, in an attempt to discredit a known games developer, as well as embroil their associates in a sex scandal, by method of an ‘internet raid’. Given new light on the matter, such claims are only partially valid. While an attempt was made by an alternative online community to influence specific content on Listnook.com, the practice of content manipulation is itself an issue that has been common place on specific sublistnooks by members of their own moderation team. IndieJuice’s source on this matter has suggested that moderators on particular sublistnooks have engaged in the practice of content manipulation to unfairly benefit specific websites, as well as platform favourable discussion for a 3rd party, at the price of ‘luxuries’. All of which remains unknown to the sublistnook’s subscribers. Though the source was unwilling to provide specific instances of such behaviour, examples were given. Trading ‘content flair’ and an ‘ask me anything’, for particular users, was ‘standard’ in a ‘favour for favour’ trade. Though the purpose might vary for a moderator accepting such a request, it was implied that such trades are made at an equal benefit for both parties involved. The implication of such evidence in the case of pre-existing questions of nepotism raises further concern for the question of corruption within the video game industry. Current discussion on the matter has only ever suggested at the existence of such corruption and has, as such, been limited to possibility. The form of corruption suggested by IndieJuice’s source is extensive. It is also very particular, in that it extends itself far beyond normal questions of ethical conduct and acceptable practice. Though IndieJuice is unable to mention further specifics that implicate members of Listnook’s administration team in general, informal, misconduct despite the interview revealing as much, what may be said is that specific moderators are involved in the original controversy of ethical press coverage itself. The scale of this entire issue has yet to make itself known, though the source did hint at the fact that major video game news sites, and members of their associated press, might also be involved; or at the very least, specific well-known individuals acting of their own accord. Though the original controversy raised on Listnook focused specifically on a game developer, recent events have caused the entire ethic of journalism within the video game industry to come into question. This also includes quality of content and the nature of favourable reviews in the instance of pre-existing relationships. Reaction to this issue has been mixed, by those both within the scope of controversy, and those beyond. What may be said is that it is no longer an issue of ‘misogynists’ on the loose in social media, but of the ability of those whom wish to express themselves being able to do so safely. On both sides of the argument. https://soundcloud.com/user613982511/recording-xm-2014 Audio file is back up and backed up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkBMAHUkibY

crankfive Sep 7, 2014 +12

This whole conversation is just devolving into "How about this sublistnook I find offensive or objectionable? Why is this not banned? If you're going to ban /r/thefappening then ban all the things!" If there was a TL;DR for this post, it should read: "Content-wise, our stance has been and will be: If it doesn't legally require us to take action, and doesn't violate our own rules, we try not to mess with it. However, in this very extreme circumstance without precedent, a questionable sublistnook was BREAKING the freaking site for everyone, so we had no choice but to ban it." This is reasonable to me, but people love finding conspiracy where there is none and crying oppression/censorship when that's not really what's going on. Since when did listnook become "the man?" We all love this site for its freedom, and it's largely because of the work of the site creators and admins that we've been able to create that culture. Can we not lend them a little credence when they try to explain their actions? As they've admitted, they got some timing wrong, and didn't explain themselves as clearly as they could have the first time. But, again, this situation is without precedent. Honestly, this kind of frank explanation is more than we could expect from the head of almost any company, and I for one appreciate that. A sublistnook got banned in order to protect the site as a whole. Had listnook not banned it they would have had to continue allocating more resources to policing it, which surely would have sparked more outrage as to why effort was being spent on allowing people to keep endlessly mirroring stolen photos. They made a reasonable call they had to make and chose the lesser of two evils. No one's trying to censor or oppress anyone. It's still listnook. Grow up and deal with it. To the top commenters who are trying to discredit a justified explanation by calling out other sublistnooks they don't like: So you want an open platform, but when a forum begins to break the foundation of that platform in a way that would harm the experience for everyone, you think that should be allowed to continue? But then, when that platform-breaking forum is banned, you then start witch-hunting other forums you don't agree with out of spite for the banning you don't like - calling for more bans which would then further hurt the openness of the site? Do you see the irony here?

Zorkamork Sep 7, 2014 +64

So how many women in /r/photoplunder need to hire lawyers to get you to actually have standards for them because the header for that sub is literally 'they should know better'. Also should the families of the /r/picturesofdeadkids lawyer up too, because it seems your only standard is 'free speech above all else unless it makes bad press for us then we were always at war with Eurasia.'

vambot5 Sep 8, 2014 +6

I appreciate the impossible situation into which Listnook was thrown by this whole thing. I think that in the circumstances you did the best you could. I understand that you were being flooded with legal threats and had to make some tough decisions. I expect the leader of my country to make tough decisions, and I expect the same from website admins. I am a pragmatist, and I recognize that situations are fluid while you assess the various options and potential consequences. Your ultimate decision was careful and deliberate. I think what is sticking in everyone's craw is the feigned morality. I can only assume that such language is there as a cover-your-ass measure for those mining your response for media quotes. Many are quick to latch onto such language and scream that you allow other subs that are much more immoral. As a pragmatist, my thinking is, well, the existence of those subs is not threatening to bankrupt the site at the moment, so we do not have to worry about them right now. More generally, I think that arguing hypocrisy is a fundamentally c**** and valueless argument. Your job is tending to the going concern of the site. As such, you have to make tough calls when a tough situation arises. The very nature of tough calls is that folks will be pissed no matter what you do. In this instance, I think you have endeavored to make the choice that is best for the ongoing existence of Listnook. Had you stood on some sort of principle and allowed the site to be bankrupted by aggrieved victims of a hacking scandal, then you would have killed the very forum in which folks are currently criticizing your actions. tl;dr: You made a tough call in a tough situation, and I support your decision.

dickcomments Sep 7, 2014 +7

Since we are talking DMCA can someone help me out here and explain why Listnook was removing links to the infringing content? DMCA notices are a) removing content from THEIR website (as in Listnook was actually posting the infringing image) and/or b) if the websites entire existence was to circumvent copyright protections on software or materials that have copyright protections in place (DVD, software, whathaveyou). DMCA does not specifically prevent a website from linking to illegal/infringing content, nor is there case law that requires you to remove links to infringing content (like copy written images). Listnook doesn't host images, or does it? If no, no reason to take down the link. The only thing I can think of is the thumbnail that goes with the link, and if that is the case you remove the image and not the link. Listnooks sole purpose isn't to circumvent copyright protections on materials that have copyright, so no take down. So, yeah, not buying the DMCA line either.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +1887

1887

capyoda Sep 7, 2014 +820

Agreed. Should have just took it down and state matter-of-fact: "We did it from a legal and technical standpoint (or else listnook will break)." The moral high ground / finger-wagging blog post can show up a week later when things die down (or spun differently).

820

Advertise_this Sep 7, 2014 +134

I think we're missing something obvious here. Why have the "you should all be ashamed of yourselves" "Listnook is a moral website" blog post, followed by this "let's be frank and honest" stuff? Because they are made for separate audiences. The blog post is now repeated almost word for word in that Business Insider article and makes Listnook look Good to the outside world, after a week of negative press. This post is to keep us happy.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +39

> This post is to keep us happy Funnily enough, it seems to be having the exact opposite effect.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +7

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +44

PfalzDIII Sep 7, 2014 +433

Oh yes time to talk...BUT DELETE EVERYONE MENTIONING YOUR BLATANT CENSORING: Have you checked out this: https://imgur.com/a/f4WDf Basically during the Gaming-Journalism Listnook Admins participated in heavy censoring and lying. But hey "Free Speech". Here is the related listnook-thread: http://www.listnook.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2fdcm7/censorship_on_listnook_shadowbanning_and_drama/ Funny how all the censoring resulted in a full-on Streisand effect.

433

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +117

117

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +260

260

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +1525

Just gonna say this: The less transparent moderators become on Listnook the sooner people will flock to an alternative. Nothing lasts forever on the internet.

1525

TheGuardian8 Sep 7, 2014 +1048

I understand all that, but the fact that /r/PicsOfDeadKids /r/CuteFemaleCorpses and all the other fucked up subs around this place just makes it feel like you only ban things when it hurts your image or bottom line (I get that your a business and thats what you need to do, but stop trying to make it about something else) Stolen images get posted here daily, as well as images taken without consent and images of really fucked up things. But it takes celebrity n**** before you start doing anything....

1048

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +77

mungojelly Sep 7, 2014 +6

None of this applies to private listnooks. You can make a group here to exchange any information at all and nobody's going to notice or care. So what people here are complaining about isn't really their right to communicate freely with their own associates, they're complaining about what they can't say _to strangers_ without even getting their permission first. It's not really about your right to disseminate information, it's about what you can't _shove in someone's face_ when you don't even know them or have any prior relationship with them. There is _some_ freedom we have and ought to have to loudly say uninvited things to strangers in public places, but we really shouldn't confuse that with our more basic freedoms of expression and association, which are in no danger at all from these policies.

jesseholmz Sep 7, 2014 +466

i can see the mexican cartel butcher someone with a chainsaw but the moment some famous t***'s t*** shows up on here, "a very sad thing has happened"?

466

thegamer373 Sep 7, 2014 +9

you want to talk? Lets talk. I've been around Listnook for about a year now and the past couple of weeks have been, well, sad. First thing that should be talked about is the Zoe Quin event. 25000 deleted comments and nothing posted to talk about it. What? Zoe quin was a controversial topic and i can understand getting rid of people who where saying hurtful and painful things about her BUT this doesn't mean that you can just delete pages worth of info about her and what people think of the fiasco. that's just constructive criticism. I'm guessing the excuses used here will be that it was all spam but it wasn't. Communicating with your community is the most important part of keeping this site alive. you are trying to do this here but when Zoe Quin happened you stayed silent unless messaged and still you didn't say much there. as for "the fappening" i found the fact that there was a blog post about freedom of speech and not a message when the /r/fappening was accessed to be a little silly. explaining why you took it off there would of been a huge clarification for anyone who wanted to access the site. i also think that stopping all image/site links would of been a good idea so that people could still talk about it but not share the profanity would of been good so that people could share their ideas and information on the topic (which is the main point of Listnook). i still have more to say but i have an appointment. please ask questions and if the Listnook admins/mods want to ask me anything or talk the comment and DON'T PRIVATE MESSAGE ME. everyone needs to hear your thought processes and how you are working through this. thanks The Gamer #373 Edit 1: that was alot quicker than i thought it was going to be. back to ranting now I personally don't like the fact that celeb n**** where leaked or that people took advantage of this. iI want to make sure everyone knows that i am biased in what i say as is everyone and you should try to form your own oppinion on what you see and believe in the handling of the fappening was in my position, fine. you took down the sub because it was causing harm to users and the server. also this prevented people from getting hit with malware from shady download sites and other such things. this is also why removing thumbnails wouldn't work. there would still be a problem that is incredibly hard to deal with. the only problem here is communication. in so many relationships communication is what makes or breaks everything. Listnooks admins/mods (i'm unsure if i should be addressing mods here so im including them non the less) need to tell us what they are doing and why. this happens on most subs but Zoe Quin and the fappening(this needs another name or it wont be taken seriously) where different. these occurrence saw large scale removal of content without context or reason. this leads to distrust which leads to the relationship breaking. new sites will come and replace you so the main person you are hurting are yourselves. you have two opptions from here on out TL;DR for the lazy/time restricted 1: continue with sloppy communication and suspicious behavior and shady occurrences and suffer a loss of users and supporters. 2:start telling us what you are doing and why so we can work through crisis's with you. we are here for you, you are still our site and we will do whatever it takes to keep you pure and running a similar occurrence is happening on another site that i frequent called Hugelol. the site recently banned a large number of its old users because of stupid behavior, of course this wasn't told to people and everyone thought that it was happening in spite of the old users. now there is a new site being crowd funded to replace it. thanks for reading/TL;DRing and have a nice day The Gamer #373

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +287

287

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +84

This really is the beginning of the end. This hypocrisy reeks of pandering to the media to maintain revenue. It's no longer about the users. I am calling for a stop on all listnook gold until complete transparency is provided. Remember, we don't have to pay for this so we are the product. Stop paying and stop viewing and they might start listening. To be clear, this isn't about what was taken down, it's about how they did it and and how inconsistent they are.

ericredbike Sep 7, 2014 +49

This is all well and good, and I am not normally one to care about internet drama. However I still cannot get over[ how a moderator from /r/blackladies was shadowbanned for interupting the culture of listnook when she was coming to the admins when her sublistnook was being raided by a sublistnook like /r/greatapes/](http://www.listnook.com/r/circlebroke/comments/2fgb2f/evidently_interfering_with_the_culture_of_a/). Then in the same week listnook takes such a righteous stand against /r/TheFappening. Seriously, whats going on here? This site is starting to have the reputation of being the cesspool of the internet rather than the front page of the internet. I went from not wanting people to know I used this site because it is so very dorky to not wanting people to know I use this site because it is so racist, sexist, creepy, mean, deplorable, etc. It is time to clean this place up.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +16

These celebrities are just people. They're not special enough to get this kind of treatment. You should either take down all stolen and copyrighted photos of natures hosted on this site and remove the related sublistnooks, or keep the celebrity photos and The Fappening up. It's a double standard that makes you guys sound really hypocritical. Everyone is pulling the whole "violation of privacy" card just because a few famous people got hacked, when this type of thing happens to thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people every day and ends up on here, or related sites. It's not fair that those people go unspoken for but an actress and a model get special treatment. Either everything is fair game, or nothing is. And why play it off like this was some moral decision? You didn't want to get sued by the celebrities, why not just say that?

N0_KARMA Sep 7, 2014 +43

Bottom line. It was easier for you so you did it. Also this is a speech. There is nothing to talk about, you made your point. It would be better if you just did what wub_wub said: I think you should have just said simply "We had to remove thefappening and related sublistnooks due to DMCAs/illegal content and spam" and called it a day instead of the whole "we love free speach, we will never interfere with sublistnooks.

midoge Sep 7, 2014 +64

For TLDR; We censored because, [Wall of Text] Q: Will we censor again? A: Yes, if pressure comes we censor. We even accept taking DMCA's on user generated weblinks, aka. zero content on our host.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +105

Stop with the embarrassing dad titles - we don't need to talk, you need to stop pretending you are some kind of moral pariah when you are just cowering to lawyers

spacehogg Sep 7, 2014 +822

What makes this /r/photoplunder any different than /r/TheFappening other then they aren't famous?

822

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +372

Constant DMCA notices, and reposting of the DMCA'd material. In a way, yes it's because they're celebrities and they can afford to hire someone who's job is to find their photos and DMCA them.

372

cardevitoraphicticia Sep 7, 2014 +18

This comment has been overwritten by a script as I have abandoned my Listnook account and moved to [voat.co](https://voat.co). If you would like to do the same, install [TamperMonkey](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tampermonkey/dhdgffkkebhmkfjojejmpbldmpobfkfo) for Chrome, or [GreaseMonkey](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/) for Firefox, and install [this script](https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/10380-listnook-overwrite). If you are using Internet Explorer, you should probably stay here on Listnook where it is safe. Then simply click on your username at the top right of Listnook, click on comments, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top of the page. You may need to scroll down to multiple comment pages if you have commented a lot.

kasmackity Sep 7, 2014 +939

So....does that mean you're going to make age verification a requirement on /r/Gonewild?

939

hellegion Sep 7, 2014 +582

I had a satisfied chuckle on this well made point. Is that a 17 yr old girl's a******...or 18yr old? The world may never know....

582

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +151

to make it even more complicated - age of consent is different in different countries

151

azriel777 Sep 7, 2014 +20

There is an example TODAY of mods in /r/games banning and shadowbanning users for posting about the story about racketerring of the IGF awards. Please tell me that something will be done about the mod abuse across the sublistnooks!

treborsel Sep 7, 2014 +16

Okay, if you are pissed off at what listnook is doing, stop giving gold. Let's make sure that the daily gold bar stays below 30%.

mkmcmas Sep 7, 2014 +347

You're exhausted and stressed and PR is not your job. Close your computer, go home, sleep, and hire a legit public and legislative affairs person tomorrow morning. For real.

347

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +72

hippiechan Sep 7, 2014 +3

> Q: You profited on the gold given to users in these deplorable sublistnooks! Give it back / Give it to charity! > A: This is a tricky issue, one which we haven't figured out yet and that I'd welcome input on. Gold was purchased by our users, to give to other users. Redirecting their funds to a random charity which the original payer may not support is not something we're going to do. We also do not feel that it is right for us to decide that certain things should not receive gold. The user purchasing it decides that. We don't hold this stance because we're money hungry (the amount of money in question is small). Then shouldn't you refund the money? If someone is paying to essentially 'tip' a person online for a post that they enjoyed and the administrators delete the comment, shouldn't that person get their money back, as it has essentially now served no purpose other than to go into your own holdings? I agree that it shouldn't be sent to a charity that may go against the gold-buyers wishes, but what's worse than that, I think, is for you to hold on to it. Otherwise, I mostly agree with the comments that say that listnook doesn't care about the moral implications of having private n*** pictures on the website, as much as it cares about the media reaction. Listnook is a site riddled with racism, sexism, homophobia, pedophilia, gore, necrophilia, and more. Trying to position yourself as being 'in the moral right' seems a meaningless statement when sublistnooks like /r/niggers and /r/WatchPeopleDie are still allowed to operate and upload links to your servers. I understand listnook's aim to bring users censor-free content to appease their demand, but you have to be consistent with it. 4chan reached a similar crossroads in its development: it was forced to either change /b/ to include less offensive material, or allow it to go effectively unmonitored, and chose the latter, because it espoused moot and 4chan's view in allowing *all* information to be free, even if said information was a detriment to society. I won't say if I agree with 4chan's path, nor that I disagree with the way listnook has handled the situation, but I will say that listnook can't take both paths in this situation without sacrificing its consistency: either you weed out all the other detrimental sublistnooks and clean this website up, or you let *everything* be legitimate content.

cant_think_of_one_ Sep 7, 2014 +11

> Q: You profited on the gold given to users in these deplorable sublistnooks! Give it back / Give it to charity! > A: This is a tricky issue, one which we haven't figured out yet and that I'd welcome input on. Gold was purchased by our users, to give to other users. Redirecting their funds to a random charity which they original payer may not support is not something we're going to do. We also do not feel that it is right for us to decide that certain things should not receive gold. The user purchasing it decides that. We don't hold this stance because we're money hungry (the amount of money in question is small). I think you should refund all payments made to gild comments in sublistnooks you ban. To do otherwise is extremely hypocritical. You should not profit from what you refuse to allow. I will not be making any gold purchases (which I have done in the past) until Listnook does this or something similar (or, someone points out something that I feel absolves them such as a large charitable donation in the past). This should be easy enough to do because you must track which comments gold was purchased in relation to and so should easily be able to determine which sublistnook those comments are in and whether or not it was banned. As you say, the amounts are small so, it won't harm you significantly either. You should leave the person whose comment was gilded with the gold because, it could well have been a comment that was criticising the sublistnook/post for exactly the reasons you banned the sublistnook and, getting into arguments about the meaning of comments is tricky so, just let them all keep the gold privileges to avoid these arguments. Edited to add the quote and, to remove my comment that I will be enabling adblock until they do this, which I have reconsidered.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +113

quid_nunc Sep 7, 2014 +368

Please post all the DMCA requests, which surely are not confidential. That way we can better understand your actions.

368

RamonaLittle Sep 7, 2014 +28

That's a good idea. They could send all DMCA notices they receive to [Chilling Effects](https://www.chillingeffects.org/about).

LessYapMoreFap Sep 7, 2014 +7

So it really just comes down to just not being able to maintain complying with the DMCA's. All morality aside, this was a business move since Listnook does not have the resources to maintain complying with the law for these sublistnooks. It makes sense, and it could have been explicitly expressed that way. Obviously the chaos and time-sensitivity caused this to morph into a bunch of different reasons and theories.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +176

176

ZadocPaet Sep 7, 2014 +54

Just a couple things. 1. You guys let an internationally recognized hate group use listnook as a platform to spread their message of intolerance. That was complete bullshit. And that was scheduled out in advance. 2. You can't pull these kinds of images from the internet. They're there. Also, who care? Really? There as plenty of subs where non-celebrity n**** are "leaked" on listnook. 2. Given the previous point, doesn't banning /r/TheFappening actually make your job harder in terms of take down requests? I get the reasoning that your workload has increased. But before you had one sub with a dedicated mod team on your side. Now the posts will just be made all over listnook. It's not going to stop. 3. As pointed out, there are way worse subs, some in particular include n**** of underage girls. /r/thefappening is by far not the worst thing that's ever been on listnook. Deciding to close it after letting it get so large was a mistake that just makes it worse. In a week no one's going to care about the leak, and in a month no one will remember FapGate. I guess no one will remember this controversy either, so my entire post is pointless. Edit: P.S. The concept of the take down requests is somewhat bullshit by its nature. You know if Aaron Sorkin made a TV show about a site like listnook he's have the heroic admins fight the oppressive requests. P.P.S. Someone get me Sorkin's agent, I have a great idea for a new series.

trizephyr Sep 7, 2014 +21

1. That has nothing to do with anything, and Alienth made it clear that this a legally compliant free speech forum, so they could do that AMA if they wanted to. 2. They have to pull every image that they get a DMCA for. And the difference is that the other leaked n**** have NOT been DMCA'd. The Second someone claims them, they can be taken down. 3. /r/thefappening was the hub of all actvity, taking it down HAS reduced takedown requests. 4. Find those pics and report them then. I keep hearing "Oh, but what about those pics" but no one has pointed OUT the pics. Once you report it, it will be taken down. Take down requests are not listnook law, they are Government law. If you dont like it, write to congress.

samdaman222 Sep 7, 2014 +271

**TL;DR** They're following the law as per requirement, hence banning of celeb n*** sublistnooks cos people kept reposting illegal images causing massive downtime for admins and increases in DMCAs. Shady sublistnooks are not banned as on the whole they want to be neutral and let the community work together in what they want to keep and what they don't. Hit them over the weekend, immediate decisions had to be made. Don't be a jerk, they're just doing their best to keep the site active for all users, not just for those who want to look at n*** celebs. If it's illegal they do their best to maintain that listnook does not do illegal things. On the whole (especially if by legal request). Gold given during event is still being sorted out.

271

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +164

164

CoinValidator Sep 7, 2014 +9

>Our general stance on this stuff is that listnook is a platform, and there are times when platforms get used for very deplorable things. And it's still being used for deplorable things. Why draw a line in the sand just because it's naked famous people? And not dead kid images, creeper shots or subs devoted entirely to posting images of non-consenting women? You've already banned subs that have thumbnails disabled so it's complete and utter bullshit to say you're only doing this for to satisfy DCMA requests.

DirtyProfessor Sep 7, 2014 +91

> Q: Why aren't you banning these other sublistnooks which contain deplorable content?! A: We remove what we're required to remove by law, and what violates any rules[8] which we have set forth. Beyond that, we feel it is necessary to maintain as neutral a platform as possible, and to let the communities on listnook be represented by the actions of the people who participate in them. I believe the blog post[9] speaks very well to this. yet /r/photoplunder is fine... good job ~~mods~~ admins. For those not wanting to check out the link, it is a sublistnook that is based on people going to photobucket and "plundering" accounts with n****. Rarely if ever are they professional n**** but the persons clearly private collection. edit. changed mods to admins.

kwh Sep 7, 2014 +18

"Running website is hard" Same old self righteous c*** I've seen from slashdot, Wikipedia, you name it in the past. The idea of a "democratic" user generated content site is a load of c***. There will always be a cabal. There will always be lawyers. There will always be voting algorithms and shadowbans manipulating things behind the scenes. There will always be a moment when Toto pulls the curtain back and reveals that the wizard is in control the whole time and you end up issuing self righteous moral proclamations of principle like that absolute garbage last night. When I read that it literally made about as much sense as the lambeosaurus c***.

BallsDeepInLife Sep 7, 2014 +424

You do what you have to do to protect your site. Whether people like it or not is their decision. The beauty of being a human being is having that ability to choose on what you want to be a part of or not. People that do like it, will continue doing their thing and the individuals that don't will move on. unrelated side note: the one thing that blows my mind about this whole mess is how powerful basic nudity is. insane.

424

>We remove what we're required to remove by law, and what violates any rules which we have set forth. Beyond that, we feel it is necessary to maintain as neutral a platform as possible, and to let the communities on listnook be represented by the actions of the people who participate in them. I believe the blog post speaks very well to this. This is the key part of this. The admins have to walk a fine line between protecting the site legally, as you say, and keeping it a neutral platform. The admins don't want to impose their morality or ethics on anyone, and I don't see why that's a bad thing. All they want to do is keep the site out of legal trouble.

Eau_de_Zazoom Sep 7, 2014 +20

Listnook's in a weird place at the moment. It's not obscure enough anymore to really allow for a hands-off approach in my opinion, I mean this whole event was covered by the Washington Post. That seems insane to me, that events on Listnook would warrant that kind of attention, but that's the way it is and obviously they want to protect their reputation as well as the future of the site. If they became known as the kind of site where you can get stolen n*** pictures of celebrities that would have a pretty significant effect on the kind of community Listnook is in the future. I think it'll be really difficult for the people who run Listnook to please observers and users at the same time.

ieatplaydough Sep 7, 2014 +386

In America, nudity and sexuality is a greater sin than murder. Just watch our TV shows.

386

Same with video games. "Assassins Creed? Do you go around killing people or? Well... I guess you're old enough..." "Watch Dogs? It's about hacking stuff, WAIT A MINUTE IT SAYS THERES SEXUAL CONTENT NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE!" Luckily I've heard that I'm not missing out on much :P

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +831

You guys are cool with leaving up subs like /r/rapingwomen to preserve free speech? F*** you

831

Pudgekip Sep 7, 2014 +49

That f****** link is staying blue. What the f***. What the actual f***. I've been voicing my opinion about how I feel everyone is over-reacting about this and they are just trying to protect the site... but you saying that's a real sub makes me feel really uncomfortable in talking anymore about it. Jesus f****** christ.

queefofengland Sep 7, 2014 +5

>Gold was purchased by our users, to give to other users. Great. Purchasers should get what they paid for and the intended parties should keep their gold. What listnook does with the profit though is completely up to listnook and out of the hands of the purchasers. Do something good with that money. Do the right thing.

Pelagine Sep 7, 2014 +7

I'd like to ask how you all decided on the position that Listnook is "the government for a new type of community." (From the public statement issued today.) This type of rhetoric makes me angry. You're not a government. You're a company. You aren't above the law, or answering to a greater authority. You're a company providing a platform. And when people use that platform to spread heinous acts, you should act ethically and stop them - as I would hope you would personally act if you saw someone being mugged. There's a lot of good that happens on Listnook every day. But allowing it to be used to share illicit, illegal material is shameful. It's makes this place an embarrassment to those of us that use it. If you can draw a line regarding child p**********, you can draw the line higher. Remove sublistnooks dedicated to violence and illicitly obtained images.

CountAardvark Sep 7, 2014 +11

My problem with this is that you're treating yourself like f****** heroes, like knights in shining f****** armor. Speak to us like people. The real reason is "We don't want to get sued by jlaw, so we're closing down the sublistnook. Deal with it." Had you posted that, I would be a megaton happier. This is listnook. The no.1 post of all time is a post asking users not to upvote it. I mean, f****** seriously. We love you for making us this website, we really do. But don't alienate your users by talking to them like children. Who are you even trying to impress? The bigwigs? The black ties? F*** 'em. You don't need them, you need us. We pay for your listnook gold and we're happy to do it because we love this site. So talk to us like you would a friend, because that's how we all speak to eachother. You're a listnookor too.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +8

I don't agree with the leaking if the pictures but I do have to point out the hypocrisy here. If we are simply going by copyright law as the legal grounds to remove a link (as the pictures are not hosted on Listnook itself) than the majority of content that is shared on Listnook fits under this category aside from public domain content. Furthermore if this is taking a exemption about leaked content (to which you seem to believe there is a law showing such as) than you are still guilty of this as leaked content from movies and video games have appeared on Listnook. Never have I seen you ban r/gaming or r/movies due to this. Again I am against these photos being leaked I think it's a terrible and cowardly act. But this seems to be totally special pleading on the part of Listnook. You don't intervene with other content is leaked in this manner. Nor does censorship work, all this is going to cause is backlash and making your job harder.

BioshockedNinja Sep 7, 2014 +6

So what was up with the Zoe Quinn thing? I dont recall any rules being broken yet people went out of there way to kill any form of discussion about the topic. I dont understand how you guys keep bragging about free speech yet you nuke threads that didn't even break any rules.

Listnook: The site that cares when forced to legally If you are going to ban sublistnooks hosting stolen images (which you should) then at least have the decency to ban them all, not just the ones where rich celebrities are involved. Also, f*** you for the phony lecture on the morality of looking at stolen n**** when you allow stolen pics depending on how much trouble it causes you personally.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +10

Why was /r/zoequinncontroversy banned? As far as I know, this sublistnook was created to discuss a controversial event as said discussion received a lot of censorship from the mods on /r/games. Some posts which doxxed personal info was rightfully removed, however many posts and comments did not break any rules. Can you explain the reasoning behind [this](http://www.datafilehost.com/d/c02a035c). The zip file contains screencaps of a conversation with an /r/games mod that implies admins told mods to remove such posts and I quote "She (Zoe) told us to delete everything regarding her. I told her no. The admins though otherwise". I know this has nothing to do with celebgate and /r/thefappening but it does have everything to do with the blatant hypocrisy of your stance on free speech and your statement that you don't ban or otherwise intervene on sublistnooks unless you're required to by law or they break valid listnook rules.

[deleted] Sep 7, 2014 +5

Listnookors: I gotta say, whatever your hangups about this, whether you are angry that your "free speech" is being censored or you feel that this is just a hypocritical move based on legal/social pressure, it really is just a case of "DEAL WITH IT". You have no rights on listnook, except those specifically outlined in contract. Terms of use can and will be changed at the owner's whim. Please don't act like listnook is a bastion for anything, and especially don't act like it is something that should be saved. It is not up to you what listnook does. If you do not feel that they are living up to your expectations of a neutral platform or whatever brought you here, then purchase a major interest in thr company or use another platform. This isn't a "If you don't like Murica, why don't you just geeeidouut?!" This is about your right to choose how you interact on the Internet. Your only real fundamental right, here, is the right not to partake. I have never had illusions about what listnook is, and every time one of these comes around, I notice how many people utterly depend on it or feel that they are owed something. You are owed nothing. Keep that in mind when leveling criticism. Don't hold this relationship to any other standard than that of a business relationship. At the end of the day, unless you are throwing some serious money around, or can guilt-trip or market-pressure someone in the company to make moves on your behalf, you have no power. Like I said "deal with it". Listnook relies on its users for revenue. You can go elsewhere and not give them your business. You can flock en masse to another outlet. But while you are here, you have agreed to abide by the rules set forth by the only people here with the power to do so.

proudbreeder Sep 7, 2014 +7

>Also, as an aside, my main job at listnook is systems administration. I take care of the servers that run the site. It isn't my job to interact with the community, but I try to do what I can. Can you please let us know who's job it is to interact with the community?

Time to talk

💬 Send a Message

197 Comments