Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Media Your Rights Online

News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban 748

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the here-we-go-again dept.
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?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

Comments Filter:
  • Lipstick (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MorphOSX (2511156) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @08:07AM (#47702189)
    Well, you can put lipstick on a pig, not sure it makes it a princess, though.
  • Sigh (Score:5, Funny)

    by wbr1 (2538558) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @08:07AM (#47702191)
    Guess I have to go to 4chan now to read gay hating misanthropic posts.
    • by nucrash (549705)

      You still have Something Awful.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @08:13AM (#47702227)

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

  • by mtthwbrnd (1608651) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @08:14AM (#47702233)

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

  • by lecithin (745575) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @08:19AM (#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.

  • by Chas (5144) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @08:20AM (#47702273) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @08:21AM (#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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @08:33AM (#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.

  • has left the building

  • Whatever.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fudgefactor7 (581449) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @08:31AM (#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.
  • by joelgrimes (130046) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @08:33AM (#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.

    • by Jahoda (2715225)
      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.
      • by Khyber (864651) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @09:36AM (#47702727) Homepage Journal

        "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.

    • by mrex (25183) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:55AM (#47703343)

      A lot of things run counter to typical internet culture on Fark.

      No, Fark has just started to run counter to what made Fark good and fun and famous. Boobies links, "I'd hit it" jokes, erudition, and irreverence for taboos and political correctness have been replaced with sponsored headlines, recycled 4chan memes, and the kinds of banal, insight-free commentary you'd expect to hear from lumpy blue hairs sipping coffee in rural truck stops.

  • by pla (258480) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @08:45AM (#47702403) Journal
    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.
    • by Khyber (864651) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @09:16AM (#47702587) Homepage Journal

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

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by puto (533470)
      I will mention her. GM are her initials. I have been a member of Fark since 2001, and watch her epic rise and subsequently taking over the reigns from Drew. She is the same girl who wrote an article for MS Magazine about her being a slut in college and blaming it on the guys, not herself. http://msmagazine.com/blog/201... [msmagazine.com]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @08:49AM (#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)

  • Bad summary. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geminidomino (614729) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @08:58AM (#47702475) Journal

    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.

  • by Joe Gillian (3683399) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @09:11AM (#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.

    • by swb (14022) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @09:59AM (#47702877)

      IMHO, a lot of academic radical feminism borders on misandry.

      There are arguments to be made about gender imbalances in every society, but radical feminism often takes it to such an absurd level that I question when it stopped being a legitimate cultural critique and started being the expression of individual emotional imbalance.

  • 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.

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

  • what about misandry? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kick6 (1081615) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:07AM (#47702929) Homepage
    Why is it that sexism is only banned in one direction? Women are allowed to shit all over men, and men are just supposed to "man up and take it." Equality my ass...
  • by epyT-R (613989) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @11:26AM (#47703655)

    Criticizing feminists and feminism is not misogyny. Unfortunately, white knighting fools get this wrong quite a bit. Calling people 'haters' or their positions as hateful are not arguments either.

    I'm sure he won't also allow equivalent criticism of men, right? Oh wait, who am I kidding? Anti-male feminist vitriol is perfectly ok. People who actually take so much offense to free expression that they insist on censorship are really the ones who need help. If these were baptists, no one would give them any mercy, but when feminists and/or women are the target, suddenly 'equality' gets thrown out the window by knee jerking white knight mangina useful idiots swooping in to 'save' them. This 'fark dude' is one of them apparently.

    I also like how he claims his site "represents enough of a departure from pretty much every other internet community that [he figures] an announcement is necessary", totally ignoring the fact that lots of sites are doing this, now, out of a relatively new culture of PC corporate sterility and/or morbid fear of losing clicks. This new 'social justice' bandwagon of appealing to the feelings of the easily offended makes for a 'perfect' excuse. What happened to round-filing complaints for unpopular criticism and calling whiners out for the losers they are?

  • by StikyPad (445176) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @12:19PM (#47704121) Homepage

    Which is not surprising, considering sites like Jezebel routinely use disparaging remarks against men in the headlines and content of their articles, like calling someone who wants equality for men a "jackass" and a "shitnugget." http://jezebel.com/jackass-sui... [jezebel.com]

    I'm not saying that they are in any way responsible for people posting porn GIFs, or posting misogynistic comments. Two wrongs don't make a right. I *am* saying that Jezebel needs to take a very close look in the mirror and lead by example. No civil rights effort has ever succeeded by villainizing the other side, and equality should mean equality, not superiority or an attempt to collectively punish a group of people based on a few bad actors.

    I'll admit that men have many advantages over women in America. We are not a minority -- we are, in fact, a majority, and thus can exert more political influence. Under 30, we are better educated, earn more, have more health benefits, options, and social programs. We live longer. We're excluded from compulsory military service. We are more likely to pass along our genes. We get courted by women who try to impress us, please us, and pamper us. If we're not impressed, we can obtain the genetic material of a more suitable mate for a nominal fee without having to deal with that whole "relationship" thing. We prevail in custody cases under a presumption that we're better parents. We are but 30% of the homeless population. We are sentenced more leniently for the same crimes, and more likely to receive warnings for speeding. When we make bad decisions, it's an accident -- everyone knows we have good intentions. We are almost never charged with sexual assault, let alone convicted, and we receive more support when we're the victims. We can use our sexuality to our advantage. Women are often our fiercest advocates, and protect us unfailingly against external threats. Women provide for us.

    Imagine the outcry if any of that were true.

  • by eepok (545733) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @01:00PM (#47704469) Homepage

    My partner and I have been together for almost 13 years. We have one of those very good relationships where we talk about problems instead of getting to the point of yelling, etc. She has a very audacious sense of humor and feels comfortable joking about spousal abuse (amongst other things) because she knows that spousal abuse is such a foreign concept in our relationship. ("I know I said I would cook tonight, but I'm ordering pizza. Please don't beat me...") I say the same back.

    If someone didn't understand the context and overheard us joking in this way, they might think there was an actual issue with violence in our household. And I think this is the impetus with the new censorship rule on Fark. If you're not a frequenter of Fark discussions and stumble across one of many memes without the historical context, you'll think everyone there is a rape-shrugging, gay-bashing, general hater. And you would be wrong.

    ----------------------
    Let's talk about a couple of the memes:

    40 lbs. Box of Rape (http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2Z7SafOiCXM/hqdefault.jpg) - If you simply read someone threaten to "send a 40 lbs. box of rape" to another person, you'd think that was a horrible concept. Boxed rape!? The idea alone is atrocious. That is until you figure out that someone took a photo of a box of rapeseed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapeseed), considered the homonym audaciously humorous, and put it online. The internet went wild with the hilariously outlandish concept of "boxed rape" (the action, not the seed) and it has since been part of tongue-in-cheek, context-driven discussion.

    Blazing Saddles references - The Mel Brooks movie 'Blazing Saddles' is synonymous with audacious humor and if any one work of artistic endeavor was to embody the spirit of Fark, it would be this movie. It addresses rape, penis size, stereotypes (beneficial and detrimental), racism, homophobia-- nothing is so sacred that it cannot be laughed at. But consider the actual context-- Mel Brooks projects absurdity upon each of these ideas by making their offenders look absolutely ridiculous. And for the most part, Fark feels and acts within the same vein.

    Glenn Beck's mythical crime in 1990 - Fark is one of the grand purveyors of the myth that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. They publicized the hoax not as a means of directly implicating Glenn Beck in a crime that never happened, but to demonstrate the effectiveness of the political messaging system that was/is constantly making extreme accusations in the form of inquiry. So Fark (amongst others) shot back. "Why hasn't Glenn Beck denied...?"

    'Legitimate' Rape - A couple years back, a conservative politician stated that abortions do not need to be available to women because in the case of 'legitimate rape', the female body has a means of preventing any impregnation at all. This, of course, is absolutely absurd... which is why Fark latched onto it. It's demonstrative of really, really stupid politician commenting on thing about which he knows little and Fark thrives on such snafus. So when a story comes up regarding rape, you're likely to see the idea of "legitimate rape" be brought up-- not because they're suggesting a distinction, but because they're restating the absurdity of this concept.
    -------------------

    If you are under the impression that Fark users tell jokes that promote rape, sexism, racism, or discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation, then you don't know Fark. Farkers celebrate every gain in the realm of gay rights and attack heinous acts with derision.

    If you don't understand that Fark's use of rape, sexism, and homosexuality in their humor comes from a Mel Brooks-style commentary on the absurdity various ideals and actions, then you don't understand Fark. It's disappointing that this kind of humor will no longer be tolerated as it pertains to these specific topics because it's a cathartic outlet for audacious humor in a good direction.

  • by poity (465672) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @01:55PM (#47704969)

    It gets image macros from 4chan and still can't decide on what the irony tag is for. Fark has long become a shadow of its former self. The left leaning political correct mob has been in control for many years now -- even being a consistent critic of public officials on both sides of the political aisle gets you into trouble because in those times when you do write anything critical of a left leaning politician, you get 10 replies of people knocking down strawmen and breathlessly posting whataboutisms.

  • by brit74 (831798) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @03:58PM (#47706095)
    Let's take a moment to dissect what's wrong with that Adam Savage quote: "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." The internet is made-up of a billion people. If you describe the internet as doing anything, as if it were a single human being, it's going to come-off as bizarre. First of all, if the internet was a person, first and foremost, it would be schizophrenic - because so many different opinions coming out of one mouth would necessarily be contradictory. Second of all, you can find any extreme opinion you want on the internet. This means that "we'd all agree that the internet has a serious problem with [fill in the blank]." is probably true because there's no consensus about anything on the internet, therefore, in order to say the internet thinks [fill in the blank], you have to pick-out some minority who believes one thing and then represent it as if it was "the internet".

As the trials of life continue to take their toll, remember that there is always a future in Computer Maintenance. -- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"

Working...