Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Unknown Lamer posted about a month and a half ago | from the here-we-go-again dept.

The Media 748

An anonymous reader writes The news aggregator Fark is ancient in dot com terms. Users submit news links to the privately run site and tear it — and each other — to pieces in the discussion threads. (Sound familiar?) While the site isn't as popular as during the early 2000s, the privately run discussion forum has continued and has its champions. site operator Drew Curtis announced today that Gifs, references, jokes and comments involving sexism will be deleted. "Adam Savage once described to me the problem this way: if the Internet was a dude, we'd all agree that dude has a serious problem with women. We've actually been tightening up moderation style along these lines for awhile now, but as of today, the FArQ will be updated with new rules reminding you all that we don't want to be the He Man Woman Hater's Club. This represents enough of a departure from pretty much how every other large internet community operates that I figure an announcement is necessary."

Given how bare-knuckled Fark can be, is it time? Overdue?

cancel ×

748 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Lipstick (5, Insightful)

MorphOSX (2511156) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702189)

Well, you can put lipstick on a pig, not sure it makes it a princess, though.

Re:Lipstick (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702267)

Have you actually tried?

Re:Lipstick (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702295)

Torvalds found it worked for his wife.

Will they ban this ? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702317)

From this link - http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/18/us-iraq-security-yazidis-idUSKBN0GI1QK20140818

... Some Yazidis, like Hassan, 22, a student, shake their heads in disbelief when recalling how only foreign Kurdish fighters from Turkey or Syria extended a lifeline in the face of Islamic State

"They tied the hands of one woman to the back of a car and her legs to another car and they split her into two," he said beside makeshift tents as women cried

Would Fark ban the above news, from Reuters ?

Re: Will they ban this ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702421)

Of course it should, that "news" shows the degeneration of the moronic monarchy called the British Empire which Slowly Instills its misogynistic ways into our society through the Culprit bully puppet Proclaiming it as inhumane while their the First Battalion to secure the oil pipeline after the invasion.
I am sorry and I sincerely apologize to everyone on your behalf as a human being that you would enjoy seeing some Grotesque account of another human's misery to be considered as news as an information worth Considering while making a decision

Re:Will they ban this ? (5, Insightful)

cdrudge (68377) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702455)

No, for the same reason why a news article that talks about a white supremacist assaulting a African-American isn't automatically racist. Or one about Westboro Baptist Church picketing a funeral of someone who was gay doesn't make it automatically homophobic. The context of the whole article is what makes it misogynistic (or racist, or homophobic, or ...)

Now if that Reuters article had that same line, but then followed it with that the woman shouldn't have been out of the kitchen. Or she just needed to fix a sandwich. Or any other misogynistic ideas according to modern society then yes, it would be banned.

Sigh (5, Funny)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702191)

Guess I have to go to 4chan now to read gay hating misanthropic posts.

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702231)

Yes, it's still going strong (and particularly hot right now!)

Re:Sigh (0, Flamebait)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702251)

Guess I have to go to 4chan now to read gay hating misanthropic posts.

Or Slashdot. It's got really, really bad here over the last couple of years. Things really nose dived after the Beta exodus and a lot of regulars left. Pick any random story about equality and it will be full of people accusing the women involved of attacking them personally and of being whiney bitches. Back when the whole Mozilla controversy was going on there were endless posts about how "just not liking gays" was somehow a perfectly okay position to take, and blaming them for daring to demand equality and human rights.

Re:Sigh (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702291)

Back when the whole Mozilla controversy was going on there were endless posts about how "just not liking gays" was somehow a perfectly okay position to take, and blaming them for daring to demand equality and human rights.

I don't want to feed the troll, but...

How exactly is forcing someone to like somebody supposed to work?

Re:Sigh (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702311)

I think it's called marriage.

Re:Sigh (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702333)

It was basically "jerk logic". People complaining about being "forced to like gays" were actually only being forced to tolerate their presence.

Re:Sigh (-1, Flamebait)

ZankerH (1401751) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702549)

Sorry, being forced to "tolerate" someone is, for me, functionally indistinct from being forced to approve of them. I will not sit by idly and let disgusting bullshit happen just because it's now politically correct to do so. Liberals don't want tolerance, they want mind control. It's the 21st century equivalent of the missionaries going out to convert the savages - the same moral crusader instinct, and the same feeling of non-debatable, inherent moral superiority. It's up to us to resist it with all our strength, and acknowledging and king of tolerance for the enemy's ideology goes against that. Liberalism is a disease and must be fought as such.

Re:Sigh (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702583)

I thought liberals had relative morality? Make up your mind.

Re: Sigh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702631)

Librlerals only have morality when it benefits their side in elections. That's why they appeal to gay rights, minority rights, women's rights, and so on. Because these groups will vote for them in the coming election.

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702643)

His non-debatable inherent moral superiority means that he doesn't have to, because he's always right.

I'm guessing he's a Republican. They're the only ones with the rank hypocrisy to suggest that government regulation is bad but the government needs to ensure that only properly licensed sex occurs.

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702649)

Sorry, being forced to "tolerate" someone is, for me, functionally indistinct from being forced to approve of them.

I wonder how you manage to function in society (then again, this being Slashdot, maybe you don't).

Re:Sigh (4, Insightful)

silfen (3720385) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702397)

Back when the whole Mozilla controversy was going on there were endless posts about how "just not liking gays" was somehow a perfectly okay position to take, and blaming them for daring to demand equality and human rights.

Yes, not liking a group of people is a perfectly okay position to take. Lots of people who claim to stand up for "equality" themselves dislike lots of other groups (capitalists, conservatives, etc.). Likewise, equality [of outcome] and [positive] human rights are something many people reject, including people ostensibly intended to be "beneficiaries" of such policies. What you are complaining about are valid political positions you simply happen to disagree with.

Re:Sigh (4, Insightful)

Typical Slashdotter (2848579) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702555)

Yes, not liking a group of people is a perfectly okay position to take. Lots of people who claim to stand up for "equality" themselves dislike lots of other groups (capitalists, conservatives, etc.). Likewise, equality [of outcome] and [positive] human rights are something many people reject, including people ostensibly intended to be "beneficiaries" of such policies. What you are complaining about are valid political positions you simply happen to disagree with.

Being gay isn't an ideology. Disliking homosexuals is completely different from not liking capitalists, conservatives, liberals, etc. Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change. It is not a political opinion, and it is not acceptable.

Furthermore, note that "disliking homosexuals" is marginal, even among evangelical Christian organizations. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention [wikipedia.org] is the largest protestant body in the US, and are evangelical Baptists. Their Resolution on Homosexuality [sbc.net] , while harmful and deeply misguided, doesn't go nearly that far. In fact, it contains the language "God loves the homosexual."

Finally, I feel obligated to point out that you seem to be implicitly lumping LGBT rights activists with those seeking "equality of outcome," as though that program is seeking some sort of government handout. The key issue for LGBT rights activists is freedom to marry, which is "equal treatment under the law," not "equality of outcome."

Re:Sigh (0)

Khyber (864651) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702679)

"Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change."

I sure as fuck chose my lifestyle, thanks. Three bad engagements to women, and I made up my mind to date men after that.

What nonsense are you on about?

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702703)

Yes but that doesn't make the intestines a sexual organ.

Re:Sigh (1)

operagost (62405) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702709)

He's on about bad science nonsense. You know, the kind that is based on politics.

Re: Sigh (1)

frikken lazerz (3788987) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702721)

Sure, they didn't choose it, but why can't I dislike it? I should have the freedom to like or hate a person for anyreason, including stupid ones like race. Now to say gays don't deserve basic rights, that's a different story. But I shouldn't be forced to hire them or make them my friends. If I don't hire someone because he is gay and he turned out to be a better worker, my business' loss. Ideally though, keep your sexual orientation to yourself. This also goes for the guys at work bragging about picking up chicks at a bar like a frat boy. Keep that stuff out of the office please. And I don't hate gays, but I would defend a business' choice not to hire because the job seeker is gay. As I said before, their loss. And if the job seeker is dumb enough to advertise that in the interview, he is a moron. Of course America is now so PC that doing so is illegal, which is a serious problem, but don't get me too off topic about that.

Re:Sigh (2)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702713)

The problem with it was that it was a rhetorical slight of hand: the Eich controversy wasn't because "he didn't like gays", but because he was being proposed for a leadership position where he'd have to show good judgement and have to manage issues related to that, and through a number of ways related to but not specifically his support for a specific organization that happened to be anti-gay marriage, had shown himself not to have that.

I don't care if someone is anti-gay or not. If they are, they're an idiot IMO, but oh well. I have my own prejudices. If I do something that proves to be obviously non-inclusive, and then on being asked about it, refuse to address the issue and instead attack those who are concerned, that is my right, but I wouldn't expect to be even considered for a leadership position afterwards.

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702523)

Sexually frustrated basement dwellers hating anyone (ie gays, women) who's getting more action? Say it ain't so!

Re:Sigh (5, Insightful)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702543)

The regulars didn't leave, AmiMoJo, least of all you who seem to show up regularly in the tediously increasing (and increasingly tedious) number of stories about how white western women, the most privileged creatures on this planet, have it so bad.

I certainly haven't noticed a raft of gay hating posts around here (any more than the usual trolling) but any chance to drum up a moral panic eh? What I did see was a lot of discontent with the McCarthyist pogrom that was going on. That's the sort of thing that raises hackles, and it can be traced back to the post structuralist academics who teach people that the phrase 'I find that offensive' is a valid argument and why we have hate speech laws at the same time we claim to value freedom of speech.

Anyway, yeah Fark. If they're going to tackle sexism they need to make sure they tackle all sexism, so no dick, cock, or misandric jokes either.

Otherwise that would be sexist.

It's been on the downslope for a while regardless, my guess is there aren't many gasps left in the old boiler.

Re:Sigh (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702751)

Pick any random story about equality and it will be full of people accusing the women involved of attacking them personally and of being whiney bitches.

Clarify this for me: Are you saying:
1. Such posts exist, and some get upmodded.
- or -
2. The majority of such comments get upmodded and misogyny is the dominant sentiment in this community.

If you're saying 2, we should take action. But first, citation needed, because I think you are mistaken. If you're saying 1, it is better to allow a few fools to express their opinion -- and better yet for us to discuss it without rancor and help them get a clue -- than to become a community that does not speak freely.

Back when the whole Mozilla controversy was going on there were endless posts about how "just not liking gays" was somehow a perfectly okay position to take, and blaming them for daring to demand equality and human rights.

Clarify this for me; are you saying:

1. That the dominant meme in the Mozilla conversation was that it is perfectly okay to not like gays?
- or -
2. That a dominant meme was that he has a right to be a bigot, even though bigotry is wrong.

The latter is what I saw in the Mozilla issue, and it is an important distinction.

I am a hard-core equal rights advocate. Nothing good comes from hate. I argued in that thread for him to be dismissed, and believe it was right for him to "choose to resign".

But here's the thing about "nothing good comes from hate" -- it cuts both ways. Nothing good comes from hate, even when the target of the hate is a bigot. While I may find a person's opinion repugnant, and I do not hesitate to tell such people their view is flawed, I will defend to the death their right to express it.

Re: Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702503)

No, that's what reddit is for.

That's it for Fark (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702205)

Given that 95% of the comments on Fark reference sharp knees, I'm guessing there won't be much content left after Drew's purge.

Re:That's it for Fark (3, Insightful)

B33rNinj4 (666756) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702747)

Pretty much this. Fark hasn't been relevant in a long time, so trying to "clean up" now is too little too late.

mehinator2000 (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702223)

Hopefully they make some kind of machine that detects when men have mysognist thoguts so we cant have these kinds of thoughts in our heads too...

Muh freedom of speech (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702227)

I don't get why people want to lock themselve in an echo chamber. That seems silly to me.

Re:Muh freedom of speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702263)

I dont get it either. I understand it when people go on harassing other people but you dont go for an example to 4chan /b/ if you are a girl to have a good time. And you should not take seriously anything that is written there.

Re:Muh freedom of speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702527)

I demand that the graffiti in the dirtiest, most dangerous alleys in the city be entirely child-friendly and gender-inclusive, and I don't care about the cost.

Don't get me wrong. I want a world that is more egalitarian and that is kept age-appropriate in a given forum. But we live in the real world. It's an ideal we can work towards, but imposing censorship is a false solution that stifles free expression. People have to learn how to deal with the harsh stuff in the world themselves. If we shelter people from free expression with all of its warts, then they won't learn how to do that. They should know how to recognize and handle trolls themselves rather than always relying on someone else to solve the problem.

Re:Muh freedom of speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702547)

Oh yeah. And give people a functional moderation system like slashdot's. It's not perfect, but a whole lot better than censors.

Muh freedom of speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702579)

I'd take that seriously if it weren't posted on slashdot.

Re:Muh freedom of speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702627)

I didn't realize slashdot removes posts. Could you point to a few cases for me?

Re:Muh freedom of speech (0)

Khyber (864651) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702689)

The entire Fuck Beta/Soylent fiasco, for the most recent example.

Re:Muh freedom of speech (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702651)

You're a straight white male, aren't you?

Re:Muh freedom of speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702731)

I don't get why people want to lock themselve in an echo chamber. That seems silly to me

Have you actually *read* the comments on fark? Massive echo chamber... With a bunch of 'lets get on the bandwagon of social injustice'. Completely missing the point of 99% of the news submissions they have are to make FUN of people. Its pretty much what that entire site is. The whole site is to make the commenters feel better about themselves. Actual discourse on events is rare. Usually the just degenerate into how much they hate 'republicans/neo-cons'. Now they have decided to clean it up. The level of hypocrisy on that site would power a small city.

Long overdue (5, Funny)

mtthwbrnd (1608651) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702233)

This is long overdue.Thank god for the censorship which will shape our future.

I hope it's just me (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702255)

...but I'm getting really annoyed by this "anti misogynist" theater. It feels like a hostile takeover. A lot of good things have been sidetracked and derailed and are now reduced to political correctness banter. All the people who want to get shit done leave when the oppressed women show up. And I mean "show up". They're not women who were there and now feel like they need to change their own environment.

Re:I hope it's just me (0, Flamebait)

amalcolm (1838434) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702341)

Whiney bitch!!

Re:I hope it's just me (5, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702399)

They're not women who were there and now feel like they need to change their own environment.

How are you so sure about that? Have you done any analysis to determine the extent to which the sexist comments have intimidated women and discouraged them from making their gender known?

Re:I hope it's just me (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702463)

Is it really a 'hostile takeover' if the management voluntarily decide to do it for their own interests(whether perceived quality, ad revenue, subscriber base, or some combination of the above)?

Between the first amendment and the explicit immunities specified by section 230 of the Communications Decency act, a site operator is pretty damn ironclad even in the case of absurdly nasty forums (so long as the copyright infringement is kept to a dull roar and the service isn't linked to too many gruesome murders). If they wanted to take a stand on the matter they would have little difficulty doing so. Apparently they don't see that as worth the trouble.

Re:I hope it's just me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702511)

On the other hand, I'm really tired of this "free speech" theater. Forums are never neutral platforms and pretending otherwise is ignoring established scientific fact. Every community establishes through it's actions who is and isn't supposed to be there. Hiding behind "free speech" (which is only supposed to apply to governments, btw) is equivalent to putting your fingers in your ear, screaming loudly "I can't hear you", while continuing whatever problematic behavior people were criticizing you about in the first place.

Also, the "oppressed women" were there in the first place, they just didn't tell you they were women until after they got angry about your stupid, shitty behavior. The fact that if someone doesn't announce their gender, they're assumed male, is part of the problem - it means that plenty of women that go to tech sites are effectively invisible to your armchair analysis. Why? Because actually announcing one's gender identity causes even worse problems. If it's Slashdot, you might get a pass depending on what day of the week it is; if it's Reddit or 4chan you'll get harassed for nude photos and pelted with never-funny-in-the-first-place sexist "jokes" that are incredibly easy to make and get upvoted before any substantiative comments can be posted. There are a lot more women here than you think there are, and they most certainly do count as part of the community.

Re:I hope it's just me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702659)

Dear god, another person who seems to think that the first amendment 'grants' the right of free speech, rather than recognises a right that everyone already possesses, and prohibits it from being infringed.

Re:I hope it's just me (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702663)

Shitty behavior on Slashdot? Would you kindly point out some upmoded misogyny? I don't think I recall ever seeing things like that on Slashdot. As for other sites the sexism you perceive on Reddit (which I would bet is just people not being anti-man enough for you) is not best answered by censoring Slashdot. You just as much as admitted to wanting a feminist takeover of Slashdot.

Re:I hope it's just me (4, Insightful)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702629)

Seconded. Slashdot is a haven for rational thought, which naturally and innately fights all ignorance including sexism. The thing is, rationalism fights antiwomen and antiman sexism alike and doesn't give either undue focus. That's not good enough for people of certain political bent.

Please leave the politics elsewhere.

Re:I hope it's just me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702677)

They're not women who were there

How would you know ?

"The Internet, where men are kids, women are men, and kids are undercover FBI agents."

Not moderated on their pay site? (4, Interesting)

lecithin (745575) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702265)

I'm just wondering if it will be moderated on 'totalfark'. Totalfark is the paid side of Fark. I could see this as just revenue generation.

Re:Not moderated on their pay site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702617)

Yes, it will be. I'm not going to dig through 4000+ posts, but I read one of Drew's posts (or maybe one of the moderators' posts) say that, in fact, TF will be too.

Because narrowly defining "sexism" will work! (4, Insightful)

Chas (5144) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702273)

Basically, like just about every other "ism" out there, we'll see mission creep. Or people abusing a badly defined policy to censor legitimate and non-infringing dialogs.

I'm not saying the sentiment isn't noble. But they just don't have an apparatus in place to make sure it gets applied in a fair, even-handed manner.

Troll bait? (0)

Bouncelot (649153) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702279)

Troll bait?

It's always amazed me... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702281)

When I was on Fark, you could make all sorts of rape, incest, murder and violence jokes, but I just mocked the delusions of 3D printer nutters and it got me banned.

Drew is a bit of a douche.

Re:It's always amazed me... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702343)

While the site isn't as popular as during the early 2000s...

Policies like this new one are why it's not as popular. They started down the path of pleasing their corporate overlords (ie, advertisers) a long time ago and started removing all the boobies pics and anything that might appear NSFW could get you banned because *gasp* heaven forbid they lose the ad-revenue of all those 9-5 desk-imprisoned FARKers click click clicking away all day on the company dime.

FARK has sucked for years. This is par for the course for Drew "FYIGM" Curtis and the constant nagging "join totalfark" ads and even the "please disable adblock" nag on their site.

Re:It's always amazed me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702485)

Worst part is even 4chan is succumbing to this.

They are trying to make the community, dare I say it, acceptable to normal people. The facebook generation. The new-Reddit generation.
Reddit used to be a fun community, now it is filled with worse types than even 4chan has ever had, and they've had legit terrorists, rapists and murderers.

One of the mods on 4chan was even linked to those social justice warrior morons on Tumblr and the like. The entire community shit itself hard a few months back when the site was hacked by that aussie guy and revealed it all.

Oh well. Not like 4chan has been good since 2006.
He killed the site when he listened to that shitposter Shii and forced anonymous on the website, because he wanted it to reflect the anonymous discussion crap on 2ch. (the site it wasn't even based on!)
Why moot listened to that moron I will never know. HE TRIED TO KILL THE SITE MOOT.

Re:It's always amazed me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702581)

For an aggrieved old tripfag like that, you sure look Anonymous.

Re:It's always amazed me... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702723)

When I was on Fark, you could make all sorts of rape, incest, murder and violence jokes, but I just mocked the delusions of 3D printer nutters and it got me banned.

From what I can tell, Fark and its users have always exhibited a contradictory- if not downright hypocritical- attitude. On one hand they'll happily use a story about some random person who's died- often some unfortunate person who hasn't even done anything stupid to deserve mocking, merely been in the wrong place at the wrong time- and use it as an excuse to make weak and distasteful jokes with little hint of empathy beyond a crocodile-tears "sad" tag. On other occasions they'll descend into downright vicious hatefulness (e.g. the death of Anna Nicole Smith [fark.com] - maybe not a saint, but not remotely deserving of some of the comments posted).

On the other hand, they'll run a "sappy" story with some offhand reference to "dust in their eyes" (i.e. by jokingly denying that a sentimental story brought tears to their eyes, they're saying it's okay- i.e. expected- for Fark users to be moved by something about someone who arranged a special treat for children in hospital or a dog that saved someone's hamster from drowning) or cutesy cat lovers' "Caturday" stories where anything less than deferential towards their beloved moggies would probably get you hanged.

It's not news, it's FARK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702285)

From what I remember of FARK, this will not end well.

News Aggregator (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702287)

At least they editorialize on the submissions, Slashdot just copypastas the first paragraph or two.

The toothpaste (1)

WormholeFiend (674934) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702297)

has left the building

Whatever.... (5, Insightful)

fudgefactor7 (581449) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702325)

Fark isn't, and hasn't been, relevant in nearly a decade. This is just Drew, the whiny owner of Fark, bending over backwards to please advertisers. This is a PR move, based on money, nothing more.

First story about Sarah Palin ends it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702331)

Fark turned into a left wing blog a long time ago. This is just pandering to their sponsors in an election year.

Sexist? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702335)

What a bunch of pussies

Fark already defies internet culture. (5, Interesting)

joelgrimes (130046) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702337)

A lot of things run counter to typical internet culture on Fark. You can't even curse on that site. It has moved away from porn. People actually pay for membership. They do IRL meetups almost every week somewhere in the world. They've been pretty successful at banning memes in the past.

I find it more witty than harsh.

Re:Fark already defies internet culture. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702415)

This, I've been on fark for about 8 years now and it's been a breath of fresh air. The only time I'll ever think of leaving is if they leave the linear comment model.

Re:Fark already defies internet culture. (1)

Jahoda (2715225) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702623)

Yeah, truly witty folks. I left 5 years ago because I don't need to spend my free time reading a website polluted with alts and career trolls that the mods do _nothing_ about, because, hey, ad revenue or manufactured controversy or something.
I met some wonderful people on TotalFark, but I don't read the internet to be pissed off and overall that place is a complete dump of assholery, and I have never looked back. Reddit works just fine.

Re:Fark already defies internet culture. (5, Interesting)

Khyber (864651) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702727)

"Reddit works just fine."

Not even. For such a supposedly 'open' community, a ton of the bigger subreddits have fucked rules.

Example, tried to post two days ago in r/aquariums regarding a problem I have. I have a new account since Reddits PW system is irreparably broken. Because I have a new account, I can't post in the aquariums section (and don't want to derail another thread with my issue) and AutoModerator removed my submission. Why? It thinks a self-post with no link, no brand names, nothing like that being mentioned, is SPAM.

Well, here I am two days later, half my tank is dead.

At least 4chan's /an/ managed to help keep half my tank alive.

Fuck Reddit.

Drew is cowtowing to someone. (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702367)

Drew is cowtowing to someone. What's the full story. Not a place for me at any rate. Not going to use the site no matter what they do there .Be interesting just what he really is making the change for his rep is beyond fixing IMO.

Re:Drew is cowtowing to someone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702425)

Drew is cowtowing to someone

Money.

In the words of Jaz Coleman...

Repeat after me!
Money's not our God!

Re:Drew is cowtowing to someone. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702459)

It's "kowtowing". No ruminants involved.

great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702375)

Great! Cause all those male hater bitches that fault the respect on males constantly on the internet just to cause harm to men are nothing but annoying. They are so stupid that actually blame us for not wanting anything with them when obviously no male with self respect will take them in consideration for a single second.

Much ado about nothing (5, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702403)

Basically Fark has one particular mod, of a gender I don't need to mention, who gets upset every time she greenlights another trashy Jezebel link and the Fark regulars (rightly) rip it to shreds. Admittedly, some posters cross the lines of good taste in doing so, but most just point out that Jezebel itself does more to advance misogyny than any forum trolls could ever do.

The official announcement thread for the new policy pretty much says it all. Fark regulars openly mocked this new policy, much like anti-beta posts here... All while shown prominent links to Foobies (along with plenty of other not exactly "wymyn friendly" advertisements) in the sidebar. This policy will last a whole week, unless Drew goes nuclear and literally bans half the userbase. But hey, we need another MetaFilter since Google has starved off the original, right?

For those seriously debating the "need" for websites to take actions like this, look at Slashdot as a role-model. Put bluntly, sites that feel the need to censor their comments simply have inadequate moderation systems. As much as Slashdot's doesn't always work to bring the best to the top, it does do an amazing job of pushing the complete garbage to the bottom. Browse at -1, and Slashdot looks much like Gorgor-era Fark; browse at 2+, and threads look like a coherent discussion of the issues broached in TFA.

Re:Much ado about nothing (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702533)

>gender I don't need to mention

>constant use of feminine pronouns

You are wearing a tower of twelve fedoras.

Re:Much ado about nothing (1)

pla (258480) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702591)

constant use of feminine pronouns

Good catch, but I wouldn't really call one slip "constant".


You are wearing a tower of twelve fedoras.

Damnit, why do people keep insisting on calling a trilby a fedora?

Re:Much ado about nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702539)

I miss gorgor

I agree with this poster (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702541)

Fark is certainly engaging in an interesting social experiment, that's for sure.

Just look at how the militant fascist progressives are salivating at the idea of making this the rule, rather than a rare exception.

Re:Much ado about nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702561)

Ah, mods with an agenda. The downfall of any online community.

Re:Much ado about nothing (5, Informative)

Khyber (864651) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702587)

Your idiot Fark mod is Genevieve Marie. No need to hide the moron's Fark handle.

Re:Much ado about nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702637)

Not cool.
I respect your right to say it, and it won't get you banned here, but calling people out cross-site where they probably won't even see it, pretty damned low.

Re:Much ado about nothing (2)

Khyber (864651) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702741)

What's lower is FARK mods already banning people over on FARK for things being said here and on Reddit.

So they get zero fucking quarter from me.

This is bullshit... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702413)

I don't condone mysogyny, but I sure as fuck don't condone censorship.

Screw Fark. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702423)

I used to be a prolific Fark user, until one day I decided to post about this great local restaurant run by some indian couple. They shadow banned me without warning, (which I noticed immediately because I would enter their photoshop contests and always got lots of votes) and then shadowbanned subsequent accounts I created as well. Emails to Drew himself were ignored.

I hope this latest decision destroys Fark. I used to love the site, but I haven't been back in years. I hope it dies.

It's a load of crap (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702427)

Go check out the main page thread where this was discussed. Basically, it was all the women saying thank you, some of the men saying that's great, and just the mention of "well, what about misandry" getting said poster curb stomped. It's still perfectly fine to call a man a "fedora wearing neckbeard" or a "men's rights actvist (MRA)" as derogatory terms, but if you make even the slightest negative remark about anything "feminism" and you'll get you comment either deleted, get a "time out", or even so far as get banned.
 
One of the moderators is a very outspoken feminist. And while she is actually a very bright young woman, she has no clue just how much damage she actually does to her own cause with some of the crap she spews there (think Jezebel level man hating). I'm betting she had a strong hand in these changes.
 
(posted as AC because my screen names here and there are almost identical, and the way the "popular kids" are acting now, if someone knew I posted this it might bring the banhammer down on my head)

Re:It's a load of crap (0)

Khyber (864651) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702521)

Quit posting as AC and stand up for yourself for once in your life.

Re:It's a load of crap (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702619)

You're not the boss of me, or anyone else. Just a bossy little prick.

Re:It's a load of crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702657)

Why don't you bite my shiny metal ass?

Re:It's a load of crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702661)

That's stupid. Like most of your comments. On the other hand your parent brought it on himself for oversharing his reason for posting as AC. Nobody cares why you're posting as AC. Just say what you gotta say.

Re:It's a load of crap (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702567)

"What about misandry" posts are a well known form of derailing. It would be like if you had a story about Comcast and instead of everyone talking about how shit they are, you'd have this persistent annoying group of shills saying "What about Google's bandwidth hogging" over and over again, talking about everything they can to make Comcast look like the victim, engaging critics with unrelated talking points, until they've achieved the goal of making sure nobody talks about Comcast. That's known as derailing, and it's bad behavior that moderators should and can deal with.

How much moderation can any website do?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702447)

Easy answer, if you don't want to be offended don't read any bloody comments.. I am regularly offended by comments here and on Fark. I still come back for more every day.

Bad summary. (3, Insightful)

geminidomino (614729) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702475)

Silly submitter, "sexism" is just fine. It's just misogyny that's not allowed. When did the concept of "subset" fall so far from general understanding?

Ah well. Fark has been as relevant to me as Jezebel or Stormfront since about the turn of the century, so I'll just go on not giving a fuck.

Define "sexism" and "misogyny" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702501)

Yeah, define those 2 terms. All i can observe is that they have lost their meaning and have been re-interpreted and re-defined so many times with so many idiotic subjective interpretations (so they can fit into whatever subjective dislike "feminists" have),
that i am surprised Tumblr and other crazy places aren't calling nature "sexist" and "misogynist" for making some people look sexier than others naturally or by making trees sticking out of ground (or rivers flowing into a canyon or cave) look like "nature's own rape culture". Or maybe they already have, i wouldn't be surprised.
This is damn stupid and it is going to be a big blowback. You can interpret anything as "sexism", ANYTHING, if you go about the pseudo-intellectual philosophical way most social justice warriors do.
If you think video game characters being sexualized is sexism, then you are either mentally kaput in some way and incapable of treating the imaginary and the reality as 2 different worlds (whereby you identify with imaginary characters to the point where your project it onto the real world), are sexually insecure, or a weird mix of both aforementioned.
Frankly i don't see how treating game characters as objects which they are, leads to the same in real life in some weird twisted slippery slope argument, unless you have mental issues or are one of those who also think video game violence leads to real world killing frenzies more than having a car leads to making driveby's with it, robberies and street carnage. As such i can say the same for many other examples.

I mean, censoring jokes now, really? Are they also going to ban all reference to 50 Shades of Grey too? Because that has over 50 million women reading it and by sex negative feminism it is a Bible of "sexism" in their interpretations.

I don't think they fully understand yet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702515)

They will need to check their own web store as well. Considering when I went and viewed the announcement, on the right in the "Fark Shop" Ad was the Boob Signal T-shirt [bit.ly] .

Uncomfortable with masculinity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47702529)

I'm struck by how often politically correct people use the words "woman" or "women", yet feel uncomfortable referring to "men", often saying "guys" (as in guys and gals) instead. And now "dude". Isn't the correlate of a dude a "chick"?
    How about if people just drop the adolescent P.C. posturing and try to act like adults? Then the sexism issue -- on the part of both genders -- will take care of itself and we won't need to feel inadequate or somehow "aggressive" in referring to men without using a diminutive term.

What constitutes sexism? (3, Interesting)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702545)

What I want to know is exactly what they think constitutes sexism, and whether it goes both ways. Most people think of it only as misogyny, but there is plenty of hatred the other way around as well. For instance, a few weeks ago, Vice had a rather intriguing article about a person calling themselves "The Femitheist", a 22-year-old college student infamous for posting a lengthy rant in which she claimed that the world would be better off if men were treated like animals - forcibly castrated in a public "ceremony" and used as breeding and/or labor slaves, with the penalty for refusing to accept that being an immediate execution. The scary part about this is that as bugfuck insane as it is (she claimed in the Vice article that it was a "joke" after people got understandably pissed at her) there were feminists and tumblr SJW cheering her on.

Now, I'm not a feminist or a tumblrite, but I'm sure if I posted the same thing word for word (except with females as the sub-human class) I would have an army of angry feminists calling for my head - and I'm sure if I told them it was "a joke", they'd only get more riled up. I'm certainly not saying this "Femitheist" person shouldn't have the right to say what they want, but it's ridiculous that a double-standard exists.

Manners vs. Censorship (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702559)

While I can understand the statement from Fark and the justification behind it, it's quite the large assumption that people will understand the true difference between someone asking them to play nice vs. someone trying to censor them.

Ignorance will likely assume the latter is at play, and people will be offended by this request.

As others have pointed out, it's also quite difficult to define sexism these days with a hard line acceptable by all.

so now sexism=misogyny? (-1, Troll)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702593)

Summary writer, your bias is showing.

History (1)

Kokuyo (549451) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702647)

I history has taught us anything, then that it's impossible to change a made up mind through the use of force.

What's wrong with being sexy? (1)

microcars (708223) | about a month and a half ago | (#47702735)

- Nigel Tufnel

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?