GoDaddy thread deleted

June 22, 2005 7:53 AM

GoDaddy recant thread deleted.
"Because the original is still on the front page".
posted by Goofyy to Bugs at 7:53 AM (62 comments total)

And...?
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 7:55 AM on June 22, 2005

I disagree with this. I wouldn't bother to return to the original, I read enough the first time. I wouldn't expect a dramatic change.

Besides, I think it is only reasonable and fair to this Parsons dude that his recant be given equal billing. Even if I wouldn't change my decision to discontinue my business with GoDaddy.

And I happen to think this whole story was more directly relevant than most Metafilter FPPs.
posted by Goofyy at 7:57 AM on June 22, 2005

And I happen to think this whole story was more directly relevant than most Metafilter FPPs.
posted by Goofyy at 7:57 AM PST on June 22

Relevant????? Are you kidding?
posted by dios at 8:00 AM on June 22, 2005

On second thought, I am being unfair to you. You did say it was more relevant than most Metafilter FPPs. And in that regard, you were comparing its relevance to other posts. So perhaps you're technically right. Although the story is completely irrelevant, it technically might be more relevant than a lot of the crap we get here like "Omg! Bush requires ties in the White House!"
posted by dios at 8:05 AM on June 22, 2005

I hope you will all join me in praying that one day dios' captors will stop forcing him to read MeFi against his will.
posted by aaronetc at 8:18 AM on June 22, 2005

I agreed with the second post simply because the initial post may have lost him customers and so MetaFilter had a sort-of moral duty to give his explanation and revision the same level of front page space. I would have preferred to have seen the original post deleted.

::I'm aware that many people didn't change there minds on this, and that's fine.::
posted by seanyboy at 8:21 AM on June 22, 2005

This is the deleted post in question.

The original post was two days ago and had been tracking changes in Bob's original post as the day went on. Today's FPP linked to the next post in his blog after the one linked on Monday.

I think it is only reasonable and fair to this Parsons dude that his recant be given equal billing. Even if I wouldn't change my decision to discontinue my business with GoDaddy.

Setting up some sort of Equal Time Rule would be bad precedent. The post is still open, people can link and discuss Bob's new blog post there. For $5 Bob himself can get an account and comment. I'm very happy that the man had the guts to admit that he was wrong, but in and of itself the new post is only relevant to the previous post, not MetaFilter as a whole.
posted by jessamyn at 8:23 AM on June 22, 2005

I don't know, the Chianina beef derail was starting to get interesting
posted by matteo at 8:29 AM on June 22, 2005

Well, I did find out about Bob's recanting yesterday, that said I think that there are going to be a huge number of people who read the post yesterday and said "fuck godaddy", while maybe they wouldn't feel that way if they read the recanting, and still are not going to read every post in that other thread to find out exactly what happened.
posted by delmoi at 8:29 AM on June 22, 2005

Well, I made some comments in the deleted thread, and I'm certainly not going to bother repeating myself in the old thread. And frankly, if FPPs appear and disappear like the proverbial red lady on the hustler's table, one might as well ask oneself whether commenting on any of them is really worth the time. There seems to have been a greater number of thread yankings recently.
posted by clevershark at 8:29 AM on June 22, 2005

I disagree jessamyn. It wouldn't be setting up a rule. MetaFilter has never run on precedent, and there has always been leeway for bending the few social "laws" we have. Usually with situations which may in the future cause problems, MetaFilter takes a "we'll try it, but if people start to abuse it, we'll stop it" policy. Given that Matt publicly stated that he was going to stop using GoDaddy, and his status on this site; not deleting the second post would have (a) been fair and (b) would not cause calls-outs of favouritism, nepotism, etc..
posted by seanyboy at 8:33 AM on June 22, 2005

People were begging for thread yankings. You can't please all of the people all of the time. If people are interested in the story, they will follow the story. I don't want my news spoonfed to me, whether it's from Fox News, CNN, or even MetaFilter.
posted by Roger Dodger at 8:34 AM on June 22, 2005

I hope you will all join me in praying that one day dios' captors will stop forcing him to read MeFi against his will.
posted by aaronetc at 8:18 AM PST on June 22 [!]


Hear fucking hear.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:37 AM on June 22, 2005

It seems a little silly to yank a thread to a live site with a number of comments, but then to also leave the nonsensical "pagan bullies" deader-than-dead Geocities link on the FP.
posted by clevershark at 8:38 AM on June 22, 2005

This was a much-needed deletion. If people care so fucking much about what this "GoDaddy" entity thinks, they can follow the original thread. I shudder to think what MeFi would be like if people felt free to post updates to ongoing threads, even about subjects that might conceivably (unlike this) be considered of some importance.

Also, dios has as much right to snark about MeFi as any of you bozos.

one might as well ask oneself whether commenting on any of them is really worth the time.

One should always ask oneself this.
posted by languagehat at 8:52 AM on June 22, 2005

Dios' post inspired me to comment on this thread.

on preview
Languagehat, there's a difference between snarking about Mefi and shitting in threads constantly.
posted by Goofyy at 8:55 AM on June 22, 2005

how would this change anyone's objection to godaddy? don't you boycott people based on who they are (what they believe), rather than what they decide is appropriate for pr reasons?
posted by andrew cooke at 9:02 AM on June 22, 2005

there's a difference between snarking about Mefi and shitting in threads constantly.

This is true, but I happen to think a lot of people perceive dios's comments as "shitting" because they disagree with his politics, and if a proper leftie MeFite were to make exactly the same kind of comments they'd approve of them, or at least never dream of calling them "shitting in threads." I highly disapprove of that sort of hypocrisy.
posted by languagehat at 9:02 AM on June 22, 2005

languagehat writes "if a proper leftie MeFite were to make exactly the same kind of comments they'd approve of them, or at least never dream of calling them 'shitting in threads.'"

Evidently the right's flirtation with persecution fantasies continues unabated.
posted by clevershark at 9:06 AM on June 22, 2005

How about an option in which the original post in amended to read, "UPDATE: Bob recanted here" at the end?

Nothing wrong, in my opinion, with updating a story, and it's quite likely that most readers wouldn't click inside to find the update. I mean, if we had a post that said Michael Jackson touches little kids, and it turns out he doesn't but we don't post a follow-up, people will still think Michael Jackson touches little kids.

OK bad example.
posted by me3dia at 9:15 AM on June 22, 2005

dios has as much right to snark about MeFi as any of you bozos.


col cazzo, L-Hat. he has never had anything remotely useful to put in this site except "you all suck" comments. 3 sucky fpp's, and the rest is snark. if he doesn't like it and despises the users here, he should go. as pointed out above, who forces him to read us? God knows I wouldn't read his blog. I wouldn't deluge it with "dios sucks" comments, I just wouldn't read it. but then I wouldn't stir the shit -- stirring the shit is his hobby. good for him, and bad for us.

fact is, people who constantly complain about how bad a restaurant is, and about how small the portions are, are very annoying.

he's not really an asset, sorry. I'd take 250 "Islam sucks and Bush is great" users (we all know who they are) over dios. he's 100% noise. he makes one almost nostalgic for hama7
posted by matteo at 9:21 AM on June 22, 2005

Evidently the right's flirtation with persecution fantasies continues unabated.

the American Loony Left stronghold on all three branches of the US government is just sickening, I tell you. one hopes President Chomsky is impeached soon. no, wait, if he is removed then Vice President Louis Farrakhan would step in as President!
posted by matteo at 9:24 AM on June 22, 2005

matteo, that is being completely unfair to my posting history. I often contribute substance. You may not like my substance, but that is a qualitative judgment based on your own beliefs.

Fine, you don't think I am an assest. Thanks for sharing. Other than your interesting posts you sometime make, I don't think your an assest within unrelated threads. You are often frequently noise in comments.

If you want to defend the two posts I critized in this thread, then do so. But don't be disingenuous and act like you are the emblem of substance and that I have "never had anything remotely useful to put in this site." That is arrogant asshole-ness.
posted by dios at 9:30 AM on June 22, 2005

And as I have always said, when you are going to misspell a word, it's always wise to do it twice.
posted by dios at 9:32 AM on June 22, 2005

Followups are always a tough call on MetaFilter. There's so much new stuff out there that I'd rather see that than reguritate old topics (and you could argue people do that anyway with "new" posts on the same topic).

But with direct updates, the examples where an update was welcomed usually had a long time period involved, or a particularly interesting story. I would argue the godaddy guy's post has neither of those aspects.

I saw his followup by reading the old thread last night, and in the grand scheme of things a blog post by a guy running a domain outfit isn't the most interesting subject worthy of daily updates.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:35 AM on June 22, 2005

I added an update link to the post from a few days ago, per m3dia's suggestion, which I hope is okay with mr curmudgeon.
posted by jessamyn at 9:45 AM on June 22, 2005

Matt: Last I'm gonna say on this - promise.
[Why do I argue with the MetaFiltarians so much].

Normally, I'd agree with you, but you cared enough in the original post to promise a boycott of GoDaddys products. Yor opinion has a lot of weight here. When you say "Don't use GoDaddy", people stop using GoDaddy. Like it or not Matt, but you have influence. (Cue "with great power..." quote here)

This has a completely different outcome to *me* or languagehat or dios saying "Right, I'm moving all my domains from this company because they are evil." In this latter situation, I'd say fine. Delete. One post is all that is needed. Nobody listens to us anyway.

If you still stand by your pledge to move domains away from GoDaddy, then I'm fine with the deletion. If you've changed your mind, then I think allowing that second post would have been... *nice*.
posted by seanyboy at 9:54 AM on June 22, 2005

Actually - second to last thing. What really bums me out in these situations is that I find myself on a completely different side of the argument to bugbread and (especially) languagehat. And I like you guys. Oh, Why do we have to fight so much.
posted by seanyboy at 9:58 AM on June 22, 2005

Myself, I rather doubt the "recanting" is anything more than showbiz. A leopard does not change its spots in three days.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:05 AM on June 22, 2005

I hope you will all join me in praying that one day dios' captors will stop forcing him to read MeFi against his will.

*kneels, bows head deeply, binds hands, recites incantation*
posted by Rothko at 10:19 AM on June 22, 2005

I agree with the decision to update the original FPP, and was gonna suggest it myself before I read me3dia's comment.

I understand that "follow-ups" in general are a tough call, but this is a follow-up that for some (not all, obviously) will have the effect of negating the original FPP - which is a very small, important subset of follow-ups.

People who had read that and made a decision will not necessarily keep checking the thread to see what else everybody is continuing to say about it, and even though it may be just a PR move, it's equivalent to, say, Microsoft backing down over the gay rights squabble, and is extremely relevant to those people who had decided to boycott.
posted by soyjoy at 10:22 AM on June 22, 2005

I support this deletion.
posted by timeistight at 10:29 AM on June 22, 2005

Myself, I rather doubt the "recanting" is anything more than showbiz. A leopard does not change its spots in three days.

Indeed. I'm sure his PR people are having conniption fits. He's frantically trying to save face and get back all of the cancelled accounts.
posted by deborah at 10:36 AM on June 22, 2005

Mr. Parsons emphasizes several times in the comments of the new entry that it is not meant to be an apology.

And you know, 50% of visitors liked with his original entry anyway, so there! And he attributes this to the fact that "not everyone is as liberal as [one commenter]."
posted by ludwig_van at 10:45 AM on June 22, 2005

seanyboy, I don't understand your line of reasoning -- that my word is above all others. It's an update on something less than 48 hours old, something that can still be seen on the front page and that I was keeping up with and noticed the guy changed his positions. Anyone reading the old thread would see the first response outrage and the later change in heart, and I still say it's a bad idea to post an update two days later to something.

What I do with my domains doesn't really matter, but they're being moved to dotster with my others as we speak, if that matters at all to you.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:45 AM on June 22, 2005

Good deletion.
Seems to me that the deleted post would have been an okay MeTa post, though. And possibly even a sidebar item. But I think that's even excessive, as the original thread is still on the front page. It's not hard to see what previously visited bottom-of-the-front page threads are still generating comments. If following stories that interest and affect you is just too hard without being reminded higher up on the same page, get an attention span.
posted by obloquy at 10:58 AM on June 22, 2005

he's not really an asset, sorry. I'd take 250 "Islam sucks and Bush is great" users (we all know who they are) over dios.

A) Sidelong swipes at people not involved in the thread. Classy.
B) If dios wasn't here you'd invent him out of someone else.
posted by Cyrano at 11:07 AM on June 22, 2005

The funny thing is that when I first posted the new one I actually thought it was a significant change worthy of fpp-hood to be 'fair & balanced' wrt Monday's (deserved, if news-filter/liberal-filter) slam on him and his business, since I don't think many people will be scrolling down the page to see the first post, then scroll down hundreds of comments to see the updates.

But getting into the argument (and reading his comments on his 2nd post more carefully) I started doubting much has really changed in his head so, meh.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:08 AM on June 22, 2005

clevershark : "Evidently the right's flirtation with persecution fantasies continues unabated."

Languagehat's a rightie?

seanyboy : "What really bums me out in these situations is that I find myself on a completely different side of the argument to bugbread and (especially) languagehat. And I like you guys. Oh, Why do we have to fight so much."

I'm touched. And (but) I think you believe you're on a further side of the argument than we really are. You were disagreeing not so much with me, but with what you thought I was thinking, and my comments were along the lines of "seanyboy, that's not quite what I think". Plus, I'm finding myself on a slightly different side than languagehat, so we form a kind of disagreement triangle. But none of that bums me out, because the disagreement is civil (if a bit heated).

As far as the deletion: I'm very ambivalent about it. On the one hand, the initial discussion wasn't one of those "check it often for updates" type affairs, but a "complain about the issue" affairs, which means I can easily see people not checking up on the thread, even if its active, and I can't really blame said folks. On the other hand, if updating all over the blue is allowed, everything is going to start to look like those aggravating politicsfilter cross-post issues. On the same hand, perhaps an update could have been put into the main text on the first page, allowing new post-readers to see both the initial post and the update. But back to the first hand, people who don't read the comments on an active but generally unprogressing thread aren't going to reread the post text itself to see if there's an update unless they already know there is.

Which means, all in all, awkward as it is, I think the best thing would have been to put the update in the grey, as it keeps the blue for fresh new stuff, but allows followup on a Mefi discussion. Not exactly what the gray is made for, but unfortunately the best approach I can think of.

That said, thanks for putting the linkback in the closed thread, jessamyn.
posted by Bugbread at 11:43 AM on June 22, 2005

You know, I haven't seen a Schiavo post in, oh, a week or so. Can someone please post an update? Is she still dead?
posted by mkultra at 12:06 PM on June 22, 2005

The questions of update will continue to be with us when we embrace Newsfilter. Often when a story "breaks" its on Metafilter within minutes to hours. Unfortunately, the initial story is often wrong or unresolved. Nevertheless we discuss it as if it is the whole story. And, as "news" is apt to do, the story evolves, changes or is corrected over time. That is why people feel the need to provide an update.

A good way to not need updates is to not discuss news. If we let a story develop before we discuss it, then we don't run into the problem of needing update.
posted by dios at 12:13 PM on June 22, 2005

Dios, let's get married.
posted by Bugbread at 12:19 PM on June 22, 2005

Languagehat's a rightie?

I'm always amused by people who assume that if I'm defending the right of conservatives to post/snark/exist, I must be one of them. After all, every good progressive wants to be surrounded only by a choir of sweet, progressive voices, right? But since my own political views (which combine pacifism and anarchism) are shared by almost nobody, I tend not to see myself as part of any gangs.

Oh, Why do we have to fight so much.

Like bugbread said, we're not fighting, we're just disagreeing. Disagreement is good—and good for you!

On preview: That's so romantic!
*wipes away furtive tear*
posted by languagehat at 12:20 PM on June 22, 2005

If we let a story develop before we discuss it, then we don't run into the problem of needing update.

That's craaaaaaaaaaaaazy talk!
posted by mkultra at 12:21 PM on June 22, 2005

Unfortunately, the initial story is often wrong or unresolved

Or worse: it doesn't jibe with personal ideology.
posted by Rothko at 12:27 PM on June 22, 2005

The update could have been announced here, linked back to the original story +/- editing of the original FPP. Good deletion.

And dios is fucking funny sometimes just btw.
posted by peacay at 12:41 PM on June 22, 2005

languagehat : "I'm always amused by people who assume that if I'm defending the right of conservatives to post/snark/exist, I must be one of them. After all, every good progressive wants to be surrounded only by a choir of sweet, progressive voices, right? But since my own political views (which combine pacifism and anarchism) are shared by almost nobody, I tend not to see myself as part of any gangs."

Good to hear, not because I don't want you to be a rightie, but because I always pegged you as either a MOR, leftie, or grab-bag-of-other-ideas guy, who (mad props here) bases his arguments more on what is good or bad than on whether you agree with the opinions of the person who said something or not. I read you complaining about bias where there's bias, not because you disagree with the opinions of the people who hold the bias, but for being biased. So it's good to know that you're not a rightie, not because I disagree with righties, but because it would have meant I'd been reading you all wrong.

Rothko : "Or worse: it doesn't jibe with personal ideology."

Nah, being wrong or unresolved is far worse.
posted by Bugbread at 12:42 PM on June 22, 2005

bugbread: If I'm reading you correctly, and I don't want you to think I wouldn't feel this way if I weren't reading you correctly but of course that would be a different situation requiring separate analysis, then you're reading me correctly, which validates your new/old opinion of how I argue and gives me satisfaction at being read correctly and you, I presume, satisfaction at reading me correctly, though I really shouldn't presume because it might lead to false assumptions and incorrect readings and that would be bad. Or would it? Dammit, my mind is so open I'm not sure of anything any more, just like my uncle warned me would happen!
posted by languagehat at 12:54 PM on June 22, 2005

Your uncle, too? That closed-minded thing must be a conspiracy among uncles.
posted by me3dia at 12:56 PM on June 22, 2005

Nah, being wrong or unresolved is far worse.

Sorry, but the problem with news posts is that someone always has something to complain about, some axe to grind about not liking the subject at hand, and then discussions derail into the usual flame fests.

I won't comment about the attendant irony about who is bringing up newsfilter complaints here...

Whether the news is wrong or unresolved is almost irrelevant to the discussion, at that point.

News is always unresolved, anyway. If it wasn't, media companies wouldn't have anything new to sell. That's why we call news "news", after all.
posted by Rothko at 12:58 PM on June 22, 2005

"That is why people feel the need to provide an update."

Yet more reason to dislike Newsfilter. Posts breeding like Tribbles. But then, killing Newsfilter is staggeringly unlikely, eh? I like the idea of updates going to the gray.
posted by catachresoid at 1:13 PM on June 22, 2005

oh for fucks sake. There's an updated post, but I'll leave it up since it has a few more links. Feel free to continue the trainwreck in there.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:27 PM on June 22, 2005

languagehat : "bugbread: If I'm reading you correctly, and I don't want you to think I wouldn't feel this way if I weren't reading you correctly but of course that would be a different situation requiring separate analysis, then you're reading me correctly, which validates your new/old opinion of how I argue and gives me satisfaction at being read correctly and you, I presume, satisfaction at reading me correctly, though I really shouldn't presume because it might lead to false assumptions and incorrect readings and that would be bad. Or would it? Dammit, my mind is so open I'm not sure of anything any more, just like my uncle warned me would happen!"

Exactly.

And languagehat, you've got to cut me some slack. I work night shifts, and Mefi is what I do to keep myself up and happy. Can't expect the most terse writing from someone at 5:30 a.m.

Rothko : "Sorry, but the problem with news posts is that someone always has something to complain about, some axe to grind about not liking the subject at hand, and then discussions derail into the usual flame fests. "

There's more than one problem with news posts. But, you're right, that's one of 'em. Excessively-late-breaking-ness is another. And there's more on top of that.

Rothko : "News is always unresolved, anyway. If it wasn't, media companies wouldn't have anything new to sell. That's why we call news 'news', after all."

Right. Once it's resolved, it starts being called "history" or the like. And nobody complains about Historyfilter.
posted by Bugbread at 1:37 PM on June 22, 2005

Right. Once it's resolved, it starts being called "history" or the like. And nobody complains about Historyfilter.

But with few exceptions, historyfilter is pretty stale stuff until new revelations come out about something or other. In which case it is news again. But that would be newsfilter, and we can't have that here.

Which is to say, what is "newsfilter" is kind of hard to pin down, except that people know what subject matters they like to complain about, at which point we drag up the term "newsfilter" to rationalize our complaints.
posted by Rothko at 1:42 PM on June 22, 2005

oh for fucks sake. There's an updated post, but I'll leave it up since it has a few more links. Feel free to continue the trainwreck in there.

If at first you don't succeed: try, try again.
posted by timeistight at 1:57 PM on June 22, 2005

Rothko : "people know what subject matters they like to complain about, at which point we drag up the term 'newsfilter' to rationalize our complaints."

So if someone posts a link to a porn site, people say "newsfilter"? Or if somebody links to some viral marketing site, people say "newsfilter"?

Or could it be that there is a common thread that prevents people from calling "kidnapped child found" stories "Pepsi blue", or from calling "zany shoe commercial" Polifilter?

I strongly, strongly, strongly suspect the latter.
posted by Bugbread at 2:01 PM on June 22, 2005

I strongly, strongly, strongly suspect the latter.

I'm not saying that there isn't a common thread. I just don't think that common thread is enough to justify a complaint.

One frequent and shrill complaint is along the lines of, "Well, this is a post that criticizes Bush policy, and it happens to come from a news source with an ideology I don't like, so I'm going to personally trash the post, its poster, and the rest of the Metafilter community for allowing this newsfilter atrocity to happen."

Saying "newsfilter" is like calling someone a "liberal": it's the kind of lazy thinking meant to stifle dissenting points of view about the legitimacy of discussion within one post or another.

For example, the Scott Ritter post would probably not have been removed and criticized the way it had been (particularly the news source it came from), had it been constructed better.

The content of the post was not in question: the fact it was the entirety of the post was the problem, as that allows the extremists on the other side to whine, which in turn draws out the other side.

"Newsfilter" is not the problem. Shoddy construction that invites Metafilter's local arsonists (and they know precisely who they are) to stop over and inspect the place is the real problem.
posted by Rothko at 2:15 PM on June 22, 2005

I thought his recant was interesting and wouldn't have seen it if it was posted solely in the first FPP. Maybe not as a standalone FPP but it was educational to read more from Parsons, who is, most assuredly, batshit crazy.
posted by fenriq at 2:35 PM on June 22, 2005

Rothko : "I'm not saying that there isn't a common thread. I just don't think that common thread is enough to justify a complaint."

Ah, ok, I misread you then.

Rothko : "The content of the post was not in question: the fact it was the entirety of the post was the problem, as that allows the extremists on the other side to whine, which in turn draws out the other side. "

Well, I'm also opposed pretty much to PoliticsFilter, on both sides. So I'd say the initial post was polifilter, if anything. Newsfilter only comes in with the concept of providing timely updates on a situation, regardless of what the article is about. Both are bad in my book. Sure, there are times that I like it (I appreciated the original post, and there are some other poli and newsfilter posts I like), but overall it's like allowing people to throw their garbage in your lawn: sure, sometimes you might fish out some cool stuff like an old Speak'n'Spell or vintage comic books, but it isn't really worth it if it means that your lawn is full of garbage.

And, before anyone trots out the old "I guess that means we should never ever have any controversy, and we can frolic with the unicorns and rainbows!" line, I see the situation like this: You've got kids in your house. Do you leave knives and guns on the living room floor and fill the kitchen with bottles of arsenic? No. But that doesn't mean that you spray a layer of protective foam rubber over the entire room and remove anything that isn't made of clay, either. There is a happy(ish) middle.
posted by Bugbread at 2:50 PM on June 22, 2005

languagehat, you've got to cut me some slack.

Aw, I was just playing around—don't take it personal. I enjoy your style.
posted by languagehat at 3:33 PM on June 22, 2005

mathowie, just in case you didn't see my comment in the first thread, I have my doubts about dotster due to personal experience. You might want to shop around a bit more.
posted by john at 7:30 PM on June 22, 2005

he makes one almost nostalgic for hama7

Jaysus, man, bite your tongue.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:00 PM on June 22, 2005