Evergreens

Mark Smith's Journal

Work related musings of a geek.

most visited accounts

[staff profile] mark
I was curious about where most of our traffic goes, so I did some stats. This is for the last three or four days (it varies depending on the log files) across our cluster. Note that this only includes things that have hit the webservers. It does not count things that Varnish cached or were static files.

29,135,500   www.dreamwidth.org
 1,122,400   [community profile] scans_daily
   827,666   embedded.dreamwidth.net
   767,377   [community profile] bakerstreet
   445,788   [community profile] rpanons
   392,543   [community profile] hms_anon
   322,810   [community profile] the_love_hotel
   292,852   [community profile] thusia
   264,786   [community profile] dear_mun
   242,286   [community profile] love_hotel_ooc
   181,043   [community profile] paradisa
   180,401   [community profile] cfud
   169,774   [personal profile] anonies
   152,557   [community profile] aather
   150,883   [community profile] lucetilogs
   148,665   [community profile] asgardeventide
   144,921   [community profile] mayfield_rpg
   137,290   [personal profile] anticirclejerk
   136,709   [community profile] ontd_bl
   135,351   [personal profile] gleeme
   121,760   [personal profile] levkonoe
   115,834   [community profile] capeandcowl
   113,491   [community profile] adstringendum
   111,850   [personal profile] sam_storyteller
   110,461   [community profile] gargleblasted
   103,715   [community profile] sirenspull
    99,958   [community profile] singularityrpg
    80,013   [community profile] dramadramaduck
    79,149   [community profile] poly_chromatic
    77,251   [community profile] abaxcity
    76,977   [community profile] amatomnes
    76,555   [community profile] t_and_b_anon
    73,452   [community profile] capeandcowllogs
    73,255   [community profile] caughtinanetwork
    72,669   [personal profile] thefourthvine
    70,014   [community profile] grimm_kink
    68,830   [community profile] club_crimsyn
    68,332   [personal profile] dangermousie
    67,260   [personal profile] oxoniensis
    63,870   [personal profile] bioanonnies
    62,950   [community profile] the_blank_slate
    61,118   [community profile] asgardmeridiem
    59,689   [community profile] roleplaysecrets
    57,807   [community profile] singularitylogs
    57,684   [personal profile] blurts
    56,238   [community profile] exitvoid
    56,140   [community profile] soul_campaign
    55,088   [community profile] languished
    54,082   [personal profile] firecat
    53,026   dreamwidth.org

As expected, the main site (which hosts userpics too) is on top by a lot. Also, I expected the meme journals to be high, but I kind of expected them to top [community profile] scans_daily. Apparently not! Well, good on you all for being our most popular destination. :)
24.02.2012 04:17 am (UTC)

(no subject)

denise: Image: Me, facing away from camera, on top of the Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome (Default)
Posted by [staff profile] denise
The problem becomes, where do you draw the line? One person's bullying is another person's conversational style and a third person's injokes with friends. It leaves you in a position where you have to evaluate things subjectively, with absolutely no way to create an easily-applied bright line test, and subjective standards lead to massively irregular enforcement and zero consistency. You wind up in a place where whether something's actionable or not can depend on whether the person handling it has had their morning coffee yet.

That's not a good way to run a service. If you start saying that things like that are against the ToS, then you open up the question of, where do you draw the line? Is just saying something negative about another person enough to be a ToS violation? Where does that leave someone posting something like "[staff profile] denise is such a bitch" in among their 40,000 other posts about their cat and their classes and kvetching about having to clean their room? What about a community that's designed for critical commentary on an author's work, which might include negative opinions about that work; does that count too? Okay, you want to ban "hate", so what if someone names a community "wehatefacebook"? Etc, etc, ad nauseam.

There's no way you can write a policy that isn't subjective and completely based solely on the opinion of the person handling the complaint, and policy that relies solely on the interpretation of the person handling it is bad policy. If you can't apply a clear standard, the end result is inconsistent enforcement and a lot of confusion, and you spend a lot of time trying to explain to people why this was suspended while that over there wasn't. Trying to draw the line between "this is a group of people talking about their opinions about something, albeit forcefully" vs "this is a group that should be shut down" is absolutely impossible.

Standing up for freedom of expression means that you wind up defending the speech of people who are doing things you despise, and this is one of the cases that proves it. Like Mark, I hate it when people are mean to each other on Dreamwidth. But if you try to ban "people being mean to each other", you spend the rest of your life trying to enforce that, and everybody winds up too scared to say or do anything because they don't know what the rules are.

This isn't to say that we won't take action against cases that do cross a bright line test, such as comments or entries sharing people's real-life contact information -- that's easy enough to be objective about. But as much as we wish people weren't asshats to each other online, "being an asshat" is impossible to write a policy against that provides for a clear and unambiguous method of enforcement. :(
24.02.2012 05:21 am (UTC)

(no subject)

derpsawk: (Default)
Posted by [personal profile] derpsawk
You raise really good, understandable points, although I don't see how you're connecting something so broad to this specific thing that I'm explaining. It says "Hate Meme" right on it. It could not get any less ambiguous. I'm not asking you guys to start deleting accounts every time someone cries foul, or pass judgment based on vague complaints; I'm specifically talking about Just This Thing.

Hate Memes. Memes made specifically to hurt people and bring others down, to destroy reputations. Unambiguously. Very clearly. It's not social politics or slippery slopes. It's just this thing, which is used exclusively to bully others, and has caused nothing but grief over on LJ. Not anon memes, just this kind of meme.
24.02.2012 05:46 am (UTC)

(no subject)

denise: Image: Me, facing away from camera, on top of the Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome (Default)
Posted by [staff profile] denise
Okay, so, say that we say yes, being a "hate meme" is a suspendable offense. This immediately raises three dozen questions:

If an account or community calls itself a "hate meme" and posts about nothing but how much they hate Windows Vista and Wal-Mart, is that suspendable?

If an account or community calls itself a "hate meme" and posts about nothing but how much they hate Bill Gates and Sam Walton, is that suspendable?

If an account or community calls itself a "hate meme" and posts about how much they hate homework and chores, is that suspendable?

If an account or community calls itself a "hate meme" and posts about how much they hate their teachers for assigning homework and their parents for assigning chores, is that suspendable?

If an account or community calls itself a "hate meme" and posts about how much they hate Dreamwidth, is that suspendable?

If an account or community calls itself a "hate meme" and posts about how much they hate me and Mark, is that suspendable?

What if an account or community doesn't use the word "hate" but posts the same stuff anyway? Is that suspendable?

What if an account or community calls itself a "hate meme" but only posts pictures of puppies and kittens? Is that suspendable?

What if an account or community calls itself a "hate meme" but posts well-reasoned, analytical, neutrally-phrased commentary about why they disagree with someone's viewpoints or actions? Is that suspendable?

For every person who says that these particular accounts are designed specifically to hurt people, another person reads it and says that it's just someone's opinion. It's entirely ambiguous and subjective. The line really, really isn't as unambiguous as you'd think, and I say this having been doing ToS enforcement in various fashions since 2001. If we started suspending stuff like this, within three weeks we'd have someone complaining that somebody else said something that wasn't 100% positive about them and demanding that we suspend that account too.

The only way we can ensure that enforcement is clear, unambiguous, and easy to justify to others and to explain to everyone is by having a very clear set of guidelines that take as much human judgement call out of the process. To do otherwise results in arbitrary, uneven decisions that are far more destructive.

Believe me, I know full well how unpleasant it is to have people saying negative things about you (I am mentioned fairly regularly on a few different anon memes on LJ, which makes searching for people linking to my stuff or talking about DW something I can only do when I'm in the right mindset) and I know how much it sucks to know that people dislike you so strongly. But what you're suggesting is essentially that we should stop people from sharing any opinion about someone else that isn't wholly positive, and that's not something that's at all practical for a service to do.
24.02.2012 06:02 am (UTC)

(no subject)

derpsawk: (Default)
Posted by [personal profile] derpsawk
No, none of that stuff. Just these, where it says right there to namedrop and "wank" about people and things relating to RP, typically. It's all about ruining people's reputations, or spreading rumors about the games/characters they play in RP. I'm not talking about a post where people discuss "boy I hate Windows Vista, let's talk about why that operating system sucks!" or a community where people disagree with an opinion about music or movies or even a whole fandom.

I'm explaining a trend that we in RP fandom know far better because it's been going on in RP for several years now on LJ. It's not mature, it's not polite, and it's not about neutral topics. It's about destroying people's privacy, digging into people's personal lives, and stirring up rumors and hatred against people they don't like.

Obviously it's a case-by-case basis even then, to your discretion. But you have to understand that we're not talking about the same thing. You're thinking from the perspective that these hate memes I'm talking about cover multiple topics or extend to anything beyond just hurting people. If those exist I have never seen one in my life. These memes, like [personal profile] anticirclejerk are just to namedrop people and games and then say bad things about them, spread rumors, share personal information, etc.

I am not talking about someone making a post that says "HATE MEME" and then it's a meme where people whine about politics or movies or anything like that. The definition I am describing is one where it's only about harassing users and rallying people against them.
24.02.2012 08:54 am (UTC)

(no subject)

derpsawk: (Default)
Posted by [personal profile] derpsawk
Nobody is going to do this stuff you're hypothesizing- there's no "limits to push" or any "subjective rule". This has 0% to do with the Strikethrough and bringing it up shows me that you're really not understanding my point. The Strikethrough was an overzealous and hasty rush to preserve a glossy image of wholesomeness, according to a group who made completely false claims about LJ's content. LJ didn't use discretion, it just deleted things at random.

Why are you making this into a moral debate? If you see someone being beaten in the street, you don't tell yourself ten reasons why that has to be allowed or that it's not up to you because you're not an "arbiter", you just stop them.

I'm only talking about one specific thing, which is right there, staring you in the face SAYING it is promoting negativity. That is its intention, that's what it was made for. It is a Hate Meme made to spread hatred about other users. If you were to ban that account right now, it's not going to summon some great roiling serpent of indignant protest. It's you saying that DW is not going to allow the site to be used for that specific reason.

I wouldn't push for you to understand if it wasn't something that really needs to be stopped. It's had a very poisonous and adverse effect on so many people in roleplay, and even tends to extend far beyond that, as I said, into very personal territory. People know that they can get away with saying whatever they want on these things. I'm not asking you to police it all the time. But if someone sends you a message pointing out that a new one has sprung up, and you shut it down, it sends a good message toward people who are trying to use your site for something so disgustingly unnecessary. Allowing it sends no message either way; it only tells them that they can keep this up as long as they want and you won't tell them off about it.

Again, this is not a "slippery slope" or moral/social politics. It's something promoting hatred, right there! It's spelling it out for you! There is nothing vague about the intentions behind it. It is exactly what it says on the tin, and I am telling you this as a concerned user who has seen the cancerous effects it had on people over on LJ.
24.02.2012 09:08 am (UTC)

(no subject)

derpsawk: (Default)
Posted by [personal profile] derpsawk
And, for the record, there is nothing subjective about something that openly says it is promoting hate. If it was a debate forum about something and I came to you saying "Hey, delete that, I don't agree with that person's opinion," then yes, it is subjective because people have different opinions. However, hate is not subjective; if, through putting a stop to this hate meme, you get people coming to you with other things, then... oh well?

These hate memes are only about people and the communities they are in. They're not about opinions, and they're not just "people saying mean things", they're tearing down people's lives and reputations. I've spoken to at least two people who were almost driven to suicide because of these specific memes on LJ (people also reported these memes to LJ staff, but you can't report a whole journal or community, only threads or posts, even though the accounts themselves were the whole problem, because the memes are hosted on them). I really don't know how else to explain that these things are bad, sir.

You guys do great work, but you're overthinking the effect this would even have. If I could make a suggestion, maybe just screen this entire thread so no one can see it, and talk about it amongst yourselves, taking what I've told you into consideration? That's all I ask. Even if you decide not to take action, at the very least, try to discourage this content politely in a future news post or something.
24.02.2012 06:50 pm (UTC)

TW: Suicide, Death Threats

Posted by [personal profile] septim
I can't agree with you, and I've had private information leaked, as well as told to go kill myself over roleplay. Trust me, I don't take your concerns lightly, as I'm in medication and therapy for my mental health.

Still, the biggest problem is that, even if they were to ban these types of communities, they would pop somewhere else. It would cause more headaches than they are worth, not to mention the backlash would be far worse than what they've dished out.

You say people '[aren't] going to do this stuff you're hypothesizing' but they have (in other sites and this very site) when punitive actions such as these have been taken. And they're making it a moral debate because it is about morality. You are, in essence, advocating censorship of all to spare the feelings of a few.

You don't have to look at these communities, and for people with mental health problems, it's best for them not to do so. It might seem like there's a lot of people ganging up on others in these communities, but it's just a very vocal few, and very few people take what's said in these communities seriously.

I understand your intentions. But as someone who's dealt with such rumors and attacks, it'll just acerbate the problem. Let them talk, let them vent, and continue to ignore them.
24.02.2012 07:21 pm (UTC)

Re: TW: Suicide, Death Threats

kelcat: (Jaunty Zev)
Posted by [personal profile] kelcat
I'm inclined to agree. It would be one thing if these people were coming onto your personal journal and attacking you, it's something else entirely if they're attacking you (and I mean 'you' in the most general of terms, not you specifically) on a seperate community that you can choose not to be involved in.

I have mental health problems, I've been attacked in an anonymous community, and it hurt like hell. It definitely did cause me emotional suffering. I wish that this type of mentality didn't exist, and I honestly cannot understand people that enjoy being so hateful and hurtful.

That being said, I support their right to express themselves within their own communities. Free speech is something that is very, very important to many people, and for it to be taken away will definitely cause backlash.

There's also what Denise said: where do you draw the line? What's acceptable, and what's not? What phrases should be allowed, and what should be banned? It should be the responibility of the maintainers of these communities to monitor what goes on on their sites, not the responsibility of dreamwidth.
24.02.2012 09:18 pm (UTC)

(no subject)

denise: Image: Me, facing away from camera, on top of the Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome (Default)
Posted by [staff profile] denise
With all due respect, we aren't going to change the policy. We'll let people know why we aren't going to change the policy, but we're not going to change the policy. Something can be bad and still not a violation of the Terms of Service, and as Mark and I have both mentioned, this is completely and 100% subjective. I know you're hurt by this, but we are not going to suspend these communities and we are not going to tell people not to participate in them in a news post (because you're drastically overestimating human nature -- the minute we said something like that in a news post the population of the communities would double. Maybe triple. And a thread would start to mock the announcement.)

I've been working in ToS enforcement, as I said, since 2001, and I have seen what works and what doesn't. Trying to "legislate" people not being mean to each other or trying to censor an entire service to protect someone's feelings is a losing game from the very beginning and any attempt to do so only makes it ten times worse. You see a very small corner of things; we have to take a look at the whole range of human behavior.

The absolute best thing you can do if you're upset by something like that is just stop looking at it. They can't have any affect on you if you don't read them.
25.02.2012 01:32 am (UTC)

(no subject)

azurelunatic: Oblong coin with image of building, inscription 'IEEE 20 cents'.  (ieee coin)
Posted by [personal profile] azurelunatic
An earlier comment which I can't find now (not yours) mentioned in passing the idea of Dreamwidth as a whole as a "safe space", and I wanted to respectfully disagree with that concept.

You and Mark have said before that Dreamwidth is aiming for as free of speech as possible within the local laws (and of course anti-spam principles; spam isn't free speech, it's littering). This does mean that across the site there are going to be things that any one person finds horrifying, including the people running the site, but which are nonetheless acceptable under the law and Terms of Service.

A "safe space" by definition prohibits a lot more things than free speech does -- there are plenty of things that are perfectly legal but very unsafe. Safe spaces are very important, but take, as you have said, a ton of time and effort to maintain as safe. There is a certain amount of inertia, of course -- once a space is established as safe and with a population that abides by the rules when within it, it does take some doing to upset the equilibrium. But it still takes monitoring and enforcement.

Safe spaces also have to be very responsive to the individuals within them. If you have, for example, an LGBTQ* safe space with US residents, within that space you are probably going to have both people who are so amazingly burned out on the fight for marriage equality that hearing about it makes them weep, and activists who are all pumped up for the next demonstration. In that case, for the sake of the people who are utterly burned out on it, the safe space would need to insulate them from the people who are working on it; the people making the plans for the next rally would have to take themselves elsewhere -- maybe to another room, maybe outside of the safe space altogether. The rally itself probably wouldn't be within the safe space.

Now, any individual is also free to run their journal or community in any way they see fit, within the law or ToS. The official Dreamwidth communities are pretty loosely moderated, but they are still moderated -- for example, you and [staff profile] mark have made the choice to limit the amount of active venting/complaining about LiveJournal that takes place in official spaces like [site community profile] dw_news. Yet those complaints are still allowed on the service as a whole. Some of those complaints are harsh, and I would not recommend that current or former LiveJournal staff and volunteers read some of them, but they are still legal free speech, and still allowed on Dreamwidth.

Since any journal owner or community admin can run their area in any way they want, it is entirely possible (and, because of the diversity of the service and the inclusive nature of the way the site is managed, perhaps even encouraged) to have safe spaces within Dreamwidth. There are tools to enable moderation and enforcement of people's local journal rules, like comment screening, freezing, turning off anonymous comments (which is good for spamfighting anyway), and outright banning other users for any reason whatsoever (did something obnoxious/mean? belonged to a deeply obnoxious/mean community? didn't like their userpic? Any reason whatsoever!)

However, the site as a whole should probably not be considered a safe space. No matter how tempting it is because the official communities are friendly and pretty much the whole range of sentient and creative diversity is accepted -- it is not a good idea because it's far worse to find something alarming in what you thought was a safe space, than it is to find that same thing outside of a safe space.
Edited (oh right, not d's comment) 25.02.2012 03:18 am (UTC)
25.02.2012 01:42 am (UTC)

(no subject)

derpsawk: (Default)
Posted by [personal profile] derpsawk
"They can't have any affect on you if you don't read them."

You're so depressingly wrong about this, and I truly wish I could accurately explain why in fewer words. Suffice to say, the detrimental effect these memes have had reaches much further.

But just as you defend their right to speak their minds (despite the offensiveness of their statements), I have to honor your right to choose how you run the site and respect it.

Thanks for your time.
24.02.2012 06:44 am (UTC)

(no subject)

azurelunatic: A glittery black pin badge with a blue holographic star in the middle. (Default)
Posted by [personal profile] azurelunatic
(And judging from how these things tend to go, I would bet that if there were a rule like that, all of these things would happen within a few hours. Maybe a little longer if people's personal/professional lives were busy.)
24.02.2012 09:00 pm (UTC)

(no subject)

011000101110100: (Default)
Posted by [personal profile] 011000101110100
Well said, and thank you and Mark both for replying.