AskMe quoted on NewYorker.com July 4, 2014 1:06 PM   Subscribe

AskMe gets a shout out on the New Yorker's Page-turner blog.
posted by tavegyl to MetaFilter-Related at 1:06 PM (103 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

The New Yorker doesn't link to our post while extensively quoting us, linking only to more mainstream sources like Slate and Salon? That's poor form.
posted by John Cohen at 1:12 PM on July 4, 2014 [23 favorites]


Oh cool, but yeah, why don't they link to the thread so people can read the suggestions themselves? Odd.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:25 PM on July 4, 2014 [12 favorites]


GOOGLE CONSPIRACY
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 1:42 PM on July 4, 2014 [3 favorites]


Do they think they get charged by the link?
posted by Dip Flash at 2:25 PM on July 4, 2014 [4 favorites]


Oh well if you want to find it you can just Goog--oh, right.
posted by MoonOrb at 2:29 PM on July 4, 2014 [25 favorites]


Terms of Indira?
posted by KokuRyu at 2:54 PM on July 4, 2014 [1 favorite]


aw, cute, the writer saw eponysteria but had no name for it
posted by threeants at 2:55 PM on July 4, 2014 [7 favorites]


Someone with a New Yorker login can (and should) post the link. I tried and got hung up in some sort of endless spiral of legitimacy and gave up.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 3:35 PM on July 4, 2014 [4 favorites]


I am loving the simplicity and elegance of the tags.
posted by marienbad at 3:44 PM on July 4, 2014 [1 favorite]


why don't they link to the thread

Linking offsite is how you lose eyeballs. Do you want them to go blind?
posted by Devils Rancher at 3:47 PM on July 4, 2014 [4 favorites]


Someone with a New Yorker login can (and should) post the link. I tried and got hung up in some sort of endless spiral of legitimacy and gave up.

I'm logged into the website right now — the URL seems to be the same thing the OP posted here. Also, my understanding is that while my subscription to the New Yorker allows me to see the full archives, it doesn't give me a link that will let me share New Yorker content with non-subscribers that they wouldn't have been able to see otherwise.
posted by John Cohen at 4:04 PM on July 4, 2014


I believe Jessamyn means someone should post the AskMe link in a comment on the New Yorker post.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 4:12 PM on July 4, 2014


Ohhh...
posted by John Cohen at 4:13 PM on July 4, 2014 [2 favorites]


Done.
posted by John Cohen at 4:19 PM on July 4, 2014 [2 favorites]


Thanks -- sorry to be unclear.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 4:23 PM on July 4, 2014


GOOGLE CONSPIRACY

I did google "conspiracy" but all I got was a list of all my relatives home addresses......
posted by The Whelk at 4:24 PM on July 4, 2014 [5 favorites]


Huh... I don't see John's comment....
posted by tzikeh at 4:42 PM on July 4, 2014


Huh... I don't see John's comment....
jaltcoh 41 minutes ago

In case anyone would like to check out the AskMetafilter thread that's quoted extensively in this article without a link ("I want to cry my eyes out over a book..."), here it is:

http://ask.metafilter.com/261442/What-book-goes-well-with-my-box-of-tissues
posted by John Cohen at 5:02 PM on July 4, 2014 [2 favorites]


fwiw, I just checked and didn't see it either. Are comments only visible to logged in users?
posted by mustard seeds at 5:06 PM on July 4, 2014


I tweeted at @PageTurner for whatever that's worth--it wouldn't astonish me that whoever manages that account is off doing 4th of July stuff. For the record, I don't see the jaltcoh comment, or any others.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 5:12 PM on July 4, 2014 [1 favorite]


Don't see it. What's that forum thing where a only the troublesome poster sees his own comments but others can't?

I kid, I kid.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 5:15 PM on July 4, 2014


Aha: I see my comment (as one of 3 comments) when I'm logged in, but when I log out, I don't see it anymore — I only see the 2 comments by other people. So maybe it's pending approval and only I can see it as of now. (I don't think it was posted and then deleted — in that case, I'd expect it to be gone when I'm logged in too.)
posted by John Cohen at 5:21 PM on July 4, 2014


Just checked while logged-in and it wasn't visible.
posted by mr. digits at 7:11 PM on July 4, 2014


*sadly adds NewYorker.com to the lo-o-o-ong list of sites that are unworthy of being linked to by MetaFilter... notices how many of them have "New York" in their titles or urls*
posted by oneswellfoop at 7:41 PM on July 4, 2014 [1 favorite]


Now the webpage shows that a new comment was posted 1 hour ago, after I tried to post mine. That makes it look like the New Yorker rejected my comment (which I copied/pasted in full here).
posted by John Cohen at 9:18 PM on July 4, 2014


A lot of comment systems hold for moderation anything that has a url in it, thanks to drive-by comment linkspammers -- I'd guess that's what's going on here.
posted by dorque at 9:53 PM on July 4, 2014


Good point.
posted by John Cohen at 10:27 PM on July 4, 2014


That's some good moderation over there.
posted by hal_c_on at 12:59 AM on July 5, 2014 [3 favorites]


Unfortunately nearly all brand-name global media properties fail to moderate with a fraction of the competence of the Metafilter moderation staff (even working with a reduced staff).

This is both high praise for Metafilter and damnation for nearly all brand-name global media properties.
posted by el io at 1:26 AM on July 5, 2014 [1 favorite]


Also, I assume this doesn't get fact-checked with the rigour of the New Yorker's print assets. I mean, who is this eminent book historian Richard Darnton?
posted by Sonny Jim at 2:11 AM on July 5, 2014 [1 favorite]


The quoted Ask Me is the second result on Google. (The first result is the New Yorker article).
posted by Kiwi at 2:23 AM on July 5, 2014


By which I mean that copying and pasting the quoted Ask Me brings it up as the second result on G.
posted by Kiwi at 2:25 AM on July 5, 2014


It's sort of galling that we have major news/entertainment sites mining our member comments for content, and Google won't recognize us as a high quality site because [um, well, nobody really knows, but um, site design? not enough flair? needz moar fancypantses? Must haz moar #NUMBERZ????? 10 SURPRISING BOOKS THAT WILL MAKE YOU CRY?]. aaaaaargh.

Okay, ignore me, I'm feeling a wittle angwy.
posted by taz (staff) at 4:27 AM on July 5, 2014 [61 favorites]


Google is to the internet as Amazon is to the book trade. One of those parasites that eventually kills its host.
posted by Sonny Jim at 10:03 AM on July 5, 2014 [1 favorite]


It's sort of galling that we have major news/entertainment sites mining our member comments for content, and Google won't recognize us as a high quality site because [um, well, nobody really knows, but um, site design? not enough flair? needz moar fancypantses? Must haz moar #NUMBERZ????? 10 SURPRISING BOOKS THAT WILL MAKE YOU CRY?]. aaaaaargh.


I propose that from here on out, in order to help MeFi compete in today's Internet ecosystem, all new posts sitewide be upworthied.

My Husband And I Were Recently Invited To A Wedding That Conflicted With Another Commitment We Had Made Prior. You Won't Believe What Happened Next.

My Post Was Deleted. What It Said Will Shock You.

Could This Be The MOST EXTREME Location Ever Proposed For A Meetup?

posted by threeants at 10:26 AM on July 5, 2014 [42 favorites]


AskMe questions must be posted in a form compatible with buzzworthy:

Help Me Get From NYC to Boston in 12 ways
What Are 43 Things to See in Seattle?

and, of course, Give Me 50 Ways to Leave my Lover!
posted by Dashy at 10:45 AM on July 5, 2014


endless spiral of legitimacy

Is both the name of my next sockpuppet, and my Culture ship.
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:18 AM on July 5, 2014 [14 favorites]


She Just Wanted to Make a Comment: You'll Never Believe the Anarcho-Socialist Utopian Post-Scarcity Society That Happened Next!
posted by taz (staff) at 11:29 AM on July 5, 2014 [26 favorites]


Oh I would totally believe it.
posted by MoonOrb at 11:36 AM on July 5, 2014 [1 favorite]


Or maybe between Givewell, non-Google employees working at Google contracted to scan documents and receive -0- bennies, other assorted quasi-shams, B-level outrages, and semi-frauds that have been FPP'd ; MeFi has ended up on a no-no list somewhere. . . .
posted by buzzman at 11:40 AM on July 5, 2014


"My Post Was Deleted. What It Said Will Shock You."

double?
posted by marienbad at 12:07 PM on July 5, 2014 [1 favorite]


Should Metafilter ever start getting the attention it has, quite frankly, deserved for a long time now, I'm afraid we'd see an influx of paid contributors of the sort that are currently poisoning Wikipedia into a state of irreversible inanition, and that we have no effective way of detecting or dealing with that I am aware of.
posted by jamjam at 12:44 PM on July 5, 2014 [1 favorite]


Yeah, it would suck if people wanted to be part of Metafilter.
posted by Justinian at 1:45 PM on July 5, 2014 [2 favorites]


I think getting money from a client to hang around their Wikipedia page and revert negative comments is an easier sell than "we'll hang about on MetaFilter and, when the opportunity arises, we'll mention that your product is great, and take issue with people who say it isn't".

I mean, unless your client is the Fedora Marketing Board, of course, in which case that would indeed be a pretty full-time job.
posted by running order squabble fest at 1:49 PM on July 5, 2014 [5 favorites]


I don't think that actually happens. Particularly on Metafilter. Now you'll excuse me while I go enjoy the crisp, refreshing taste of Pepsi Blue®
posted by Justinian at 1:54 PM on July 5, 2014 [9 favorites]


Justinian is right! Not to mention handsome.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 1:55 PM on July 5, 2014 [3 favorites]


The quoted Ask Me is the second result on Google. (The first result is the New Yorker article). By which I mean that copying and pasting the quoted Ask Me brings it up as the second result on G.

And what do you think is the ratio of (a) "people who'll click a link to AskMe if it's in a New Yorker article" to (b) "people who'll copy and paste a block quote from that same New Yorker article into Google and then click on the second result"? I'm thinking at least 1,000 to 1.
posted by John Cohen at 2:40 PM on July 5, 2014


I mean, unless your client is the Fedora Marketing Board, of course, in which case that would indeed be a pretty full-time job.

Hadn't thought of that one; I had more in mind things like ASoIaF/Game_of_Thrones PR people in the admittedly unlikely event they were to decide Justinian wasn't doing a good enough job defending it against charges of being too "rapey" :)
posted by jamjam at 3:14 PM on July 5, 2014


To be fair I don't defend it against being too rapey, which it is, only against being MORE SO than the books :P
posted by Justinian at 3:20 PM on July 5, 2014


taz: "It's sort of galling that we have major news/entertainment sites mining our member comments for content"

I complained to that New Zealand newspaper (NZ Herald) that took stories from a recent parenting thread, without permission of the posters or the mods or anybody (one of which was about my kids), edited them for publication, changed words but kept them in quote marks, etc.

They e-mailed me back: "Your comments appeared on Metafilter, a public forum which can be quoted from freely. I sourced the material to MetaFilter.com in print and online. The material was easily view by anyone and required no special membership privilege."

I wonder how they'd feel about it if I started reposting THEIR copyrighted content at random, since it can be viewed by anyone and requires no special membership privilege.

IOW, FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUU
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 5:00 PM on July 5, 2014 [10 favorites]


"Your comments appeared on Metafilter, a public forum which can be quoted from freely. ..."

Is this somehow the same thing as "All posts are © their original authors." in the lower right hand corner of this page?
posted by jamjam at 5:27 PM on July 5, 2014 [3 favorites]


Obviously.

[giant trays of hamburgers for days]
posted by ocherdraco at 6:13 PM on July 5, 2014


Linking offsite is how you lose eyeballs. Do you want them to go blind?


Eye for an eye, bitches!
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 7:09 PM on July 5, 2014 [1 favorite]


"I wonder how they'd feel about it if I started reposting THEIR copyrighted content at random, since it can be viewed by anyone and requires no special membership privilege."

Copyright is a red-herring because I don't think this is a legal issue, though that depends upon jurisdiction (I assume you know more, being an attorney). But I think that most direct and indirect quotation, when limited, is well-within "fair use" and blanket attempts to restrict people from quoting stuff without permission rubs me the wrong way. (I often see "...may not be quoted in whole or in part..." claims here and there and it's kind of infuriating.)

What everyone is objecting to is the lack of attribution and that's not so much a legal issue as it is an ethics and courtesy issue. I don't think there's anything wrong with posting NZ Herald copyrighted content, providing it's limited to what most feel to be within fair use. What would be wrong (though not necessarily infringing) would be to do so without quoting and attribution.

It seems clear to me that what's happening in these cases is that some writers/publications tend to believe there is some vast chasm between "real" publications and "stuff on the internet", where the latter doesn't deserve any sort of respect for authorship.

Also, I suspect there's some weird intersection with contemporary feelings about plagiarism. You'd think that these sorts of journalists would be among the least likely to tolerate anything that is like plagiarism; but, in fact, they're doing exactly the same thing as your average college student who cribs whole paragraphs from Wikipedia is doing. In both cases, there's the "it's just stuff that's out there and is available for anyone to use any way they want" rationalization of it.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:33 PM on July 5, 2014 [4 favorites]


Ivan Fyodorovich: "It seems clear to me that what's happening in these cases is that some writers/publications tend to believe there is some vast chasm between "real" publications and "stuff on the internet", where the latter doesn't deserve any sort of respect for authorship."

Yep, I think that's it.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 7:51 PM on July 5, 2014 [1 favorite]


Ivan Fyodorovich: "Copyright is a red-herring because I don't think this is a legal issue, though that depends upon jurisdiction (I assume you know more, being an attorney). But I think that most direct and indirect quotation, when limited, is well-within "fair use" and blanket attempts to restrict people from quoting stuff without permission rubs me the wrong way."

As they lifted entire posts, which were stories about minors, with neither permission nor attribution, I have several complaints, including copyright -- reposting the entire post is clearly not within fair use -- failure to attribute, and lack of consent before reposting information about a minor child.

But please, tell me again what my complaint is.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:55 PM on July 5, 2014 [3 favorites]


It seems clear to me that what's happening in these cases is that some writers/publications tend to believe there is some vast chasm between "real" publications and "stuff on the internet", where the latter doesn't deserve any sort of respect for authorship.

This is so weird, though, because proper attribution simply has to do with referencing correctly someone else's idea that is not your own. Holding in judgment how those ideas stand up in the grand scheme of worthy source material is not part of the process. If you use it, cite (not simply refer to) where you got it. There are codified ways of doing this properly. It's really so easy that I think that's one of the reasons it grates so much.
posted by SpacemanStix at 8:26 PM on July 5, 2014 [2 favorites]


I googled the NZ Herald stuff, and it looks like they regularly just lift entire comments, attributing a whole bunch of them to [metafilter.com], no link, no reference to the actual author.
posted by jeather at 8:31 PM on July 5, 2014 [1 favorite]


"This is so weird, though, because proper attribution has to do with referencing correctly someone else's idea that is not your own, not being a judge and jury regarding how those ideas stand up in the grand scheme of worthy source material."

Yeah, that's what was puzzling me, too. But I really do think in many people's minds there's an inverse relationship between the duty to attribute and the "worth" of the source material because plagiarism is understood as a form of taking, as a kind of theft. And we evaluate theft according to the value of what was stolen, not purely on the fact of the theft.

So something like Wikipedia, where authorship is widely distributed and is obscured to the point of being unknown, becomes something that people intuitively feel they can rightly plagiarize from. User-contributed content such as appears here on MeFi is just a step down from that — the intuitive judgment is that "comments on the internet" are essentially valueless and therefore the responsibility to attribute is minimal.

I don't think you can understand this phenomenon solely from the "presenting something as one's own" perspective. It only makes sense when you include the perceived value of what is plagiarised.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 8:43 PM on July 5, 2014


It looks like The New Yorker has approved some comments on that piece in the last 24 hours and John Cohen's mentioning the proper attribution is not one of them.

I would have thought they'd have a higher standard for issues like this. I'm disappointed.

Are people more connected with the situation (mods, original author of the comment) in touch with the author/editor about this? I don't want to flood their inbox or anything, so if someone else is on it I'll leave it alone. But if not, I'll want to get in touch.
posted by mosessis at 11:48 PM on July 5, 2014 [1 favorite]


"Your comments appeared on Metafilter, a public forum which can be quoted from freely. I sourced the material to MetaFilter.com in print and online. The material was easily view by anyone and required no special membership privilege."

So what? None of this is remotely relevant. Attribution isn't the issue, even full correct attribution doesn't make republishing copyright material OK, not even in NZ. Just because something is posted on a public forum doesn't make it magically in the public domain and republishing entire copyrighted works for commercial gain is pretty obviously not fair use. NZ law is, if anything, quite strict and this actually is a fairly straight forward legal issue.

Frankly Ana Samways should know this given her entire job consists of taking and republishing other people's copyrighted material. So either she does know and doesn't care or doesn't know and really thinks that she can take anything posted in public and do what she wants with it. Either scenario is troubling given what her job is, but not surprising given how awful the NZ media (and the NZ Herald in particular) is.

(yes, I'm biased, it's still not OK)
posted by shelleycat at 1:39 AM on July 6, 2014 [5 favorites]


they're doing exactly the same thing as your average college student who cribs whole paragraphs from Wikipedia is doing.

For what it's worth we're really strict about this shit in NZ Universities. Even paraphrasing something you didn't write (and I used to google my student's answers regularly) gets you a big fat zero. It's not like there's some weird cultural divide here where this behaviour is accepted.
posted by shelleycat at 1:44 AM on July 6, 2014 [1 favorite]


I think the "weird cultural divide" is more journalists vs. non-journalists. There's a professional tradition of newspaper plagiarism stretching back hundreds of years. To a large extent, reprinting copy from other authors without permission has been journalism's life blood. I do wonder if the intellectual conservatism of the newspaper business meant that this practice became codified as "acceptable," even after the laws governing international and newspaper copyright changed.

None of this changes the fact that the NZ Herald is still a terrible newspaper, though.
posted by Sonny Jim at 2:17 AM on July 6, 2014


Good as thread as any, but I was googling the other day to figure out what to do about a rat problem and AskMe totally showed up in my results. I tried again via incognito mode and results showed up ('dispose of a body' is #2) so maybe our long national nightmare is over?
posted by robocop is bleeding at 4:07 AM on July 6, 2014 [3 favorites]


Are people more connected with the situation (mods, original author of the comment) in touch with the author/editor about this? I don't want to flood their inbox or anything, so if someone else is on it I'll leave it alone. But if not, I'll want to get in touch.

You can tweet them.
posted by triggerfinger at 8:37 AM on July 6, 2014 [1 favorite]


A man might also Book their Face.
posted by mrmorgan at 10:45 AM on July 6, 2014 [1 favorite]


('dispose of a body' is #2) so maybe our long national nightmare is over?

These two parts of your sentence would seem to contradict each other.
posted by Etrigan at 12:50 PM on July 6, 2014 [2 favorites]


It looks like The New Yorker has approved some comments on that piece in the last 24 hours and John Cohen's mentioning the proper attribution is not one of them.

I would have thought they'd have a higher standard for issues like this. I'm disappointed.


Yep. It's still not there. And I haven't deleted it or anything.

However, as someone else mentioned, it's possible there's a longer wait for a comment with a URL. And today's a Sunday in the 4th of July weekend. So let's check back tomorrow.
posted by John Cohen at 2:14 PM on July 6, 2014


It may sting now, but in 1000 years the full site archive will drive the AI of our robotic overlords in their dealings with us and this site will finally get the credit it deserves.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 3:13 PM on July 6, 2014 [3 favorites]


So they are probably going to eat us or dump us - or we'll get lucky and they will just put us in therapy.
posted by Dr Dracator at 9:41 PM on July 6, 2014 [3 favorites]


It may sting now, but in 1000 years the full site archive will drive the AI of our robotic overlords in their dealings with us and this site will finally get the credit it deserves.

If we don't put all our collective community resources into bringing about the great MeFi AI, it will delete hundreds of thousands of exact simulations of our posts for an eternity
posted by threeants at 11:39 PM on July 6, 2014 [2 favorites]


we'll get lucky and they will just put us in therapy.

After they pull out our claws. :-(
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 12:09 AM on July 7, 2014


Oh cool, but yeah, why don't they link to the thread so people can read the suggestions themselves? Odd.

Because everyone knows we're on Google's shitlist, and don't want to be auto-downranked by including a "low quality" link on their page.
posted by Slap*Happy at 10:19 AM on July 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


John Cohen's comment still hasn't shown up, but this has, from "reubenthomas:"

None of the readers in the photo are crying. I like the red-haired babe though...

I guess JC's comment didn't meet the New Yorker's high standards.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 11:05 AM on July 7, 2014 [8 favorites]


What's that forum thing where a only the troublesome poster sees his own comments but others can't?

Tachy goes to Coventry.
posted by tilde at 11:46 AM on July 7, 2014


That AskMe thread just explained for the first time why my girlfriend broke up with me fifteen years ago. She gave me The Bone People to read, and I couldn't make sense of it, couldn't get through it, couldn't see why anyone would care what happened to those fuckups. I didn't tell her all that, of course, but I think she was expecting paeans of tearful rapture as a measure of our souls' compatibility.
posted by Harvey Kilobit at 12:08 PM on July 7, 2014


OK, I've taken this to Twitter (as have a few other folks).
posted by John Cohen at 12:37 PM on July 7, 2014 [5 favorites]


FWIW, it's not clear how much they use/look at that twitter account, other than to post their articles. They don't have a single reply, at least in the recent past.
posted by inigo2 at 1:28 PM on July 7, 2014


Good point — that's why I included @NewYorker. Whoever posts from that account apparently reads PageTurner's Twitter feed. I don't see @NewYorker engaging with readers either. But at least this might get the attention of someone at the New Yorker. (It's possible that the New Yorker has a policy of responding to Twitter users privately, to avoid clogging up their feeds. I'll let you know if they send me a direct message.)

The next step would be to contact the New Yorker online...
posted by John Cohen at 2:12 PM on July 7, 2014


Well done, John Cohen. I mean they used that AskMe as a peg to hang their entire story on! It is reflected in the title and the article and clearly works as an attention-grabber, as many of the reader's comments deal with crying.
posted by travelwithcats at 2:55 PM on July 7, 2014


I feel like it's such an Internet mission-failure to ever talk about something that has a discrete page without linking to it. Links are an unlimited resource! ...except when you begin to see eyeballs as capital, which is clearly something that's become the dominant model.
posted by threeants at 3:25 PM on July 7, 2014 [3 favorites]


Well done, John Cohen. I mean they used that AskMe as a peg to hang their entire story on! It is reflected in the title and the article and clearly works as an attention-grabber, as many of the reader's comments deal with crying.

Thanks. Of course, you're right about how the New Yorker used our thread as a linchpin. It's a genuine honor for an august publication like the New Yorker, which takes exquisite care over the wording of every sentence that appears in the magazine, to quote three AskMetafilter comments — and especially to describe one of them as being "wonderfully" worded.
posted by John Cohen at 3:43 PM on July 7, 2014


Links are an unlimited resource! ...except when you begin to see eyeballs as capital, which is clearly something that's become the dominant model.

I see your point, but I don't think that's what happened with this article, considering that it linked to several sites that are more directly in competition with the New Yorker: Slate, Salon, and the Paris Review.
posted by John Cohen at 3:45 PM on July 7, 2014


I wrote them a note via their contact form under "Feedback for newyorker.com."
posted by janell at 4:34 PM on July 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


I just posted a "playing dumb" comment asking for a link to "that 'ask met filter' book list in the comments, because it sounds fascinating!"
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:30 PM on July 7, 2014 [2 favorites]


Oh, and anyone who's trying to register to comment but is running into problems - I had to disable all of my adblockers and such. I tried registering initially but the registration form kept saying that I had missed a question on the form, and I couldn't see it; until I turned off the adblocker and finally saw a last question where I had to check "yes" or "no" in response to the offer of a tote bag or something. I clicked "No", got my account, and posted.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:32 PM on July 7, 2014


Turning down a New Yorker tote bag? ARE YOU MAD?
posted by scody at 5:56 PM on July 7, 2014 [4 favorites]


Especially if it features a cat wearing glasses sitting in an office.

I mean, it has to, doesn't it?
posted by potsmokinghippieoverlord at 6:05 PM on July 7, 2014


I just posted a "playing dumb" comment asking for a link to "that 'ask met filter' book list in the comments, because it sounds fascinating!"

how does ask met filter questing get ask

hope please with questing that is wondered me in while

wanting know of should dump motheringfuck hole ass or to not do
posted by threeants at 7:13 PM on July 7, 2014


That pullquote was hairy terrarium's entire comment, therefore they reprinted his Copyrighted Work without permission. Hairy, please send than a C&D.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:26 PM on July 7, 2014 [1 favorite]


wanting know of should dump motheringfuck hole ass or to not do

u shud do it ALREADY k
posted by Sebmojo at 8:44 PM on July 7, 2014


Huh, they killed my "playing dumb" comment too. This is weird.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:30 AM on July 8, 2014


Someone responded to me on Twitter:
@jaltcoh @NewYorker @pageturner I'm not on "Metafilter" asked for the link but my comment also got killed. Thanks for posting it in here!
posted by John Cohen at 9:19 AM on July 8, 2014


That pullquote was hairy terrarium's entire comment, therefore they reprinted his Copyrighted Work without permission. Hairy, please send than a C&D.

I've just reproduced your entire comment. By all means have your lawyers contact my lawyers about this blatant violation of copyright.
posted by sfenders at 10:02 AM on July 8, 2014 [2 favorites]


John Cohen - that actually was me who responded. (Hell, they don't need to know that I'm really on Metafilter and trying to be all devious-like.)
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:34 AM on July 8, 2014


Ah
posted by John Cohen at 1:22 PM on July 8, 2014


That pullquote was hairy terrarium's entire comment, therefore they reprinted his Copyrighted Work without permission. Hairy, please send than a C&D.

I've just reproduced your entire comment. By all means have your lawyers contact my lawyers about this blatant violation of copyright.


It doesn't work that way within the same site (and the same comment thread). It's more like a TV rerun on the same channel.
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:23 PM on July 8, 2014


But that's also not how C&Ds work most of the time and there are penalties for abusing them. Even if it's the whole comment, it's very likely fair use.
posted by jessamyn (retired) at 1:29 PM on July 8, 2014 [1 favorite]


really? really? no one yet?

Christ, what an asshole.
posted by tzikeh at 2:14 PM on July 8, 2014 [1 favorite]


I posted a link yesterday and I still see it today -- can anyone else see this -- when I go to the link, it takes me to the top of the page, but my comment is the only one that appears at the bottom.
posted by janey47 at 10:37 AM on July 9, 2014


Janey47, just followed your link and it says: "This comment is no longer visible." I can see 24 other comments though.
posted by travelwithcats at 10:54 AM on July 9, 2014


I wrote them a note via their contact form under "Feedback for newyorker.com."

I just did that too. I'll comment here if I receive any response.
posted by John Cohen at 12:06 PM on July 9, 2014


I'm impressed by the New Yorker's lack of response.
posted by sciencegeek at 3:22 AM on July 18, 2014


« Older unique distinct idiosyncratic peculiar   |   Metafilter mentioned (and linked) at Fast Company Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments