To Post or Not to Post February 11, 2008 2:05 AM   Subscribe

I'd like to make a semi-newsworthy FPP, but worry it might be a tricky subject.

The basics : two indie-nudie-girl-sites have been in court for awhile, due to a certain very popular pink-colored nudie-indie-girl-site suing the other for what they deem violation of intellectual property. They've sued quite a few other people/sites and are still in court with a former photographer of theirs over something similar.

This pink site has been holding over their models for years a certain contract that none of their models has had the legal counsel to fight against. But, recently a court ruled that their contracts were null and void, and anti-competitive.

I would give a nice rundown of the history of that site's legal battles, the current legal battles they're involved with, some model backlash, some response from the media, and it would be a nice exposé on the whole image that site has tried to keep alive.

However, I'm asking about it here because :

1. I've worked with/for the site that won this recent case against "the site". While I don't consider that a self-link because I'm not promoting anything with it - I like having my account here and I'm not looking to lose it.

2. Some of the links would be, of course, NSFW.

3. A combination of one or both of the above points, coupled with some people already thinking I'm in need of a raised eyebrow.

Good idea? Bad idea? Offer links to whomever MeFi mails me so they can do it themselves?
posted by revmitcz to Etiquette/Policy at 2:05 AM (41 comments total)

Mods are asleep, but if you want my opinion:

1) Problem - conflict of interest at the very least

2) Not a problem - some people will get their panties in a wad over anything to do with pornography, but that's their problem

3) To Hell with them* unless there's something substantive.


*Konolia excepted. To Heaven with her, I guess?
posted by Ryvar at 2:33 AM on February 11, 2008


Sorry revmitcz, but I'd say definitely a conflict of interest (points 2 and 3 don't matter).
posted by Gratishades at 2:36 AM on February 11, 2008


I say write up the post, check all your links and finalize it. Then give it to hermitosis and have him post it before going to the big log-out in the sky. But hurry up. He's at 207 favorites now, and the East coast is just starting to wake up.

Or post it yourself. The worst that could happen is that you're out 5 bucks.
posted by chillmost at 3:12 AM on February 11, 2008


Problem - conflict of interest at the very least

I'd really be interested to read it though. Even without the NSFW material.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:03 AM on February 11, 2008


Okay, so you live in Hollywood and have worked with either (a) suicide girls or (b) god's girls. It seems to me that if you have worked for either company in any capacity, you have a conflict of interest on your hands, and probably shouldn't post the FPP. I appreciate your transparency, and I'm sure it would make for interesting reading, but seriously, people might get huffy about your connection to the company.
posted by numinous at 4:03 AM on February 11, 2008


Why are you not mentioning the names of the sites? Obviously not for legal reasons, since you're planning to make a post. Because you don't want to be sniped on NewsFilter? Because "wanting to post something before someone else does" is usually an indicator of a poor FPP.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am not the least bit interested in the intricacies of the legal battle, but am very interested in naked ladies. So yeah, I'm torn.
posted by Eideteker at 4:14 AM on February 11, 2008


Sounds like an interesting post; I'd like to see it. Mail it to someone and let them post it for you. I'll do it if it's as good as it sounds.
posted by mediareport at 5:20 AM on February 11, 2008


Why are you not mentioning the names of the sites?

He probably doesn't want to be accused of side-stepping the self-linking policy by posting a thinly-disguised FPP on MetaTalk. I've always considered it poor form for people to come on MetaTalk to pose hypotheticals about conflicts of interest in an FPP while they simultaneously mention/link to the material in question.
posted by anifinder at 5:25 AM on February 11, 2008 [1 favorite]


You can mention a site without linking to it.
posted by Eideteker at 5:49 AM on February 11, 2008


Irrespective of the conflict of interest, I don't see this as being a good Metafilter post. Perhaps this was a big event in your life, but how is it "best of the web"? Why would any of the rest of us care about it?
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 6:04 AM on February 11, 2008


Boring faux scandal crap. Don't post it here.
posted by Burhanistan at 6:08 AM on February 11, 2008 [1 favorite]


I think this would be a bad post; you are too close to the involved parties, and this makes you think that their legal battles are way more interesting than they are. This is pretty much exactly why self-linking is frowned upon.
posted by nowonmai at 6:37 AM on February 11, 2008


You can mention a site without linking to it.

That all depends on your definition of link, doesn't it? Purely HTML is not the only link.
posted by Brockles at 6:39 AM on February 11, 2008


Intricate legal battle posts give me the ice cream headache.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 7:02 AM on February 11, 2008


There's a difference between a self-link which is an instaban and a friends-link which is a generally bad idea. I don't know how closely you're linked to site number two but if it's a small shop enough that your name is on the site or closely related to it, don't do it. It's not a bannable offense but it's a bad judgment offense.

If you can put the post together without looking like you're giving link love to your workplace (which others not in MeTa now will likely find out) then it sounds like an interesting story.However even if someone else posts it, you're not going to have distance from the thread because you posted here.

NSFW links don't generally matter. What does matter is that not everyone on this site is as sex-positive as you or whatever you want to call it. This means that this topic, treated badly, will not go well. I thought your recent post was an interesting well-framed topic that turned into a pretty crappy thread that upset a bunch of people. That wasn't really your fault, in my opinion, but it showed that just because a topic is interesting it doesn't make a good thread for MeFi. So, if you were asking me personally, I'd say "Don't" but it's sort of a weak don't.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:22 AM on February 11, 2008


I say conflict of interest, but I have a conflict of myself re: saying so, in that I wildly don't care about this subject and would be happy to not see it on the blue.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:25 AM on February 11, 2008


What does matter is that not everyone on this site is as sex-positive as you or whatever you want to call it.

In South Carolina we call it creepy.
posted by ND¢ at 7:35 AM on February 11, 2008


Perhaps this was a big event in your life, but how is it "best of the web"? Why would any of the rest of us care about it?

I dunno, his framing of it sounds pretty interesting to me. There's issues of contract law and poor downtrodden porn stars rising up to fight back for their rights. It's a very web related issue with added sex -- I suspect a lot of people would find the time to care about it.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:39 AM on February 11, 2008


You read the guidelines, right? Because linking to your own site or a project you worked on in this space will result in a deletion and your account will be banned.
posted by ikkyu2 at 8:11 AM on February 11, 2008


Now, my question is this: Would it be possible to actually post this without the NSFW links? Because frankly, I would wonder if that's just being thrown in her for prurient interest -- unlike, say, the Pricasso FPP, because the penile art IS the issue. The issue here is contract law, and if the only links you are including are the indie sex websites, it will look like the whole contract law issue is just an excuse to post LOLboobiefilter. There's a difference between sex-positive and LOLboobiefilter, which is not conducive to intelligent conversations nor does it represent the Best of the Web.
posted by lleachie at 8:16 AM on February 11, 2008


I think this would be a bad post; you are too close to the involved parties, and this makes you think that their legal battles are way more interesting than they are. This is pretty much exactly why self-linking is frowned upon.

I agree (but then I have zero interest in the topic anyway).
posted by languagehat at 8:27 AM on February 11, 2008


it will look like the whole contract law issue is just an excuse to post LOLboobiefilter

I think that the whole contract law issue would just be an excuse to drive traffic to the porn website that he is somehow affiliated with, and I think the 90 day Jane thing is also going to turn out to be some kind of ad as well. That is just my gut-feeling though.
posted by ND¢ at 8:30 AM on February 11, 2008


I think that the whole contract law issue would just be an excuse to drive traffic to the porn website that he is somehow affiliated with

That really depends on how interesting the actual issue that's being discussed is, surely? Intellectual Property issues tend to generate a fair amount of interest on Metafilter, if past posts are anything to go by, and there's something ironic about the alt.boob.riot.prrrn people getting involved in this arena that may well result in an angle I've never seen before.

Of course, if it was faux scandal aimed at driving traffic, then I'd be screaming for a ban, like everyone else. If not, post it up and lets see it. The suggestion that you could name the sites without actually linking them sounds like a good one.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 8:45 AM on February 11, 2008


The suggestion that you could name the sites without actually linking them sounds like a good one.

If there's really concern that this is an exercise in self-promotion (which sounds valid), this just sounds like a slightly less direct means of such to me.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 8:51 AM on February 11, 2008


this just sounds like a slightly less direct means of such to me

I've just been googling around. As someone above points out, the sites concerned seem to be Suicide Girls and God's Girls. It kinda looks like a very old story that's been covered ad-infinitum elsewhere on the net.

I'd be surprised if it really counted as self-promotion unless revmitcz has a direct financial interest in either site. As jess says though, "if it's a small shop enough that your name is on the site or closely related to it, don't do it"
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:05 AM on February 11, 2008


It kinda looks like a very old story that's been covered ad-infinitum elsewhere on the net.

Sounds like another solid reason not to do it. But seriously, if you guys want another week-long MetaTalk about sexism, go ahead and post this breathtakingly important story. I'll be over here.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:08 AM on February 11, 2008


I pesonally don't have any issue with your relationship with the sites, though it might verge on self-link if you profit in some way from the traffic bump they'll get if you post here.

I have more of an issue about whether it would be a good post or not. FWIW, I started trying to put together a post about this a few years ago when the Suicide Girls started breaking up and God Girls was gaining steam. I thought it would be interesting, but the more I got into it, it all just seemed pretty boring - you know, breathless gossip, steamy accusations, blah blah. If it wasn't for the nekkidness angle, no one would care a bit. But maybe you've got some insight and/or links that would make it more interesting.
posted by jasper411 at 9:17 AM on February 11, 2008


Yeah if this is God's Girls then there's a bunch of photos of you with God's Girls on your Flickr stream which is really enough to have the average MeFite saying "you are linking to friends of yours" which is a general, though not a 100% allthetime strict, no no. So, I'd lean more towards no in this instance.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:20 AM on February 11, 2008


Sounds like another solid reason not to do it

Well, the fact that I've read most the links that I imagine would make up the content of the FPP had appeased my curiosity, means I didn't care one way or another.

if you guys want another week-long MetaTalk about sexism, go ahead and post this breathtakingly important story.

But I find the idea that a serious subject should be barred from discussion simply because it happens to relate to the porn industry to be kind of odious, and the assumption that it has to inevitably be tittilating or sexist to be just plain wrong.

I hang out on Metafilter, by and large, because most of the posters here aren't offensive morons. If I had as little faith as you do, kittens for breakfast, I'd be finding myself somewhere else to hang out.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:27 AM on February 11, 2008


I'm not convinced it's a serious subject (not that that should keep it from being an FPP; I'm just saying I don't think it's gonna change anybody's life), and if you really think the odds aren't good that a post about porn sites won't start a brouhaha in MeTa, you have NOT been paying attention. When I do a cost/benefit analysis, I would rather not have this (probably self-promoting and largely inconsequential) post than have another endless shitstorm.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:33 AM on February 11, 2008


I hope it's a coincidence that you also posted 90dayjane.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 10:05 AM on February 11, 2008


I'd be surprised if it really counted as self-promotion unless revmitcz has a direct financial interest in either site.

I pesonally don't have any issue with your relationship with the sites, though it might verge on self-link if you profit in some way from the traffic bump they'll get if you post here.


You guys are misunderstanding the reason for prohibiting self-links. It's not just about profiting, it's about perspective: as nowonmai says, "you are too close to the involved parties, and this makes you think that their legal battles are way more interesting than they are." It's hard enough to know what's worth posting anyway; if you have a personal involvement, it's pretty much impossible.
posted by languagehat at 10:21 AM on February 11, 2008


Pretty much exactly what Jessamyn said. This is the sort of thing that is really treading to the crumbling ledge of permissability, with your closeness to the subject and the mixed "old news / insider gossip" take some folks have advanced here.

With a close-ties friend-link situation, it's sticky enough when someone blunders on to the front page with something like this and we have to hash it out after the fact. But you've already thought to apply the breaks, and I think you should run with that "this might not be a good idea" instinct and just liberally apply the kibosh here.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:22 AM on February 11, 2008


just liberally apply the kibosh here

This is MetaFilter, after all; I don't think there's much chance he'd conservatively apply the kibosh.

Hey, where's the kibosh, anyway? I had a whole can of it sitting right here...
posted by languagehat at 11:14 AM on February 11, 2008 [1 favorite]


Oshkosh -- it's Oshkosh kibosh.
posted by breezeway at 11:22 AM on February 11, 2008


Just to clarify some things :

I didn't mention names because I didn't want to side-step the self-link law by more-or-less sneaking the post into here.

The court case I mentioned is but one part of the whole story. It's the most recent newsworthy part, but it's not the only part. It's substantial because, as I mentioned, the site in question has threatened former and current models with what has now been deemed void.

My interest in posting this has actually nothing to do w/my relationship to one of the sites in question. In fact, while I was hosting an internet TV show for about 2.5 years, I had models and admin of almost every popular "alt-porn" site on my show at one point or another except the pink site. So, in a way, I've been in the thick of it for awhile.

The underlying point of the post is an expose on that site - and the scene, in a way. Something that I think MeFi would be interested in. It's uncovering something that the site's tried hard to bury. It's close in principal (but by no means in severity) to, say, outing DeBeers - and the recent post about their settlement was a post in a similar vein.

I've received a few messages in my MeFi mail - so I'll follow-up with those people. Ultimately, if the people who might be interested in posting this on my behalf say "yeah, this FPP would suck, but you can't see that from your vantage point" that's fine and no harm done :)
posted by revmitcz at 11:47 AM on February 11, 2008


I think the SG exclusivity contracts issue is interesting, having only found out about it and read some materials in the last month or two. So I think the recent court decision about them is interesting as well, and I was very interested in hearing about how the site works and what the pay structure is like.

I also do not think that having worked with the GG folks necessarily makes this a conflict of interest or self-promotion. The meat here is the conflict, timeline, and (so far) resolution. A post that explained this to outsiders, from the SG stated origin and purpose up through this brouhaha, could be good reading and really no more promotion for GG than SG.

The problem I could see you having is managing (a) to collect it into a form that would introduce the neophyte to the situation and (2) being sufficiently unbiased. Writing something that's over-the-top axe-grind filter is crappy, if not a rule breaker.
posted by phearlez at 11:50 AM on February 11, 2008


phearlez : There's been statements made about the "dirty money" GG is financed by, as well, and I wouldn't hesitate to include that in said post. Again, while I have my own feelings about SG - the point is more to say "here's something you might not know about" cause I remember how shocked I was when I first heard the beginnings of this stuff about 2+ years ago.
posted by revmitcz at 11:57 AM on February 11, 2008


Well you can add me to your list of people to 'preview' your potential post - I'd be interested in seeing if there's better and/or more complete information out there than what I read, primarily via a livejournal with the title 'tales from the darksite.'
posted by phearlez at 12:06 PM on February 11, 2008


heh. yeah, that's the SGirls community on LJ. It's an anti-SG community and they're all a bunch of drama hounds. It's amusing to stop in and see what's up - but don't hang around too long, you'll get a thin film of slime on you that's tough to wash off.
posted by revmitcz at 12:08 PM on February 11, 2008


Remember when that guy did the parody of BoingBoing? And instead of "Suicide Girls", he had an ad for a site called "Studious Girls" ...

... do I even have to finish that thought?
posted by AmbroseChapel at 3:27 PM on February 11, 2008


« Older waaahaaaa there's no comments on tag view please...   |   WTF Newer »

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