The following article is very interesting for ALA-ophiles, but I warn you, it (and this blog post) contains salty language and the picture to the right from the site:"Library Conference Secret Twitter Proves Librarians Sexy, Stern," by Amanda Hess, The Sexist, 13 July 2009.
Dig the part about the likely ALA member censoring other ALA members, then preventing access to past tweets. Don't you love the double standard when the ALA censors people (like Robert Spencer of JihadWatch? Ginny Maziarka of West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries? Greg McClay of SHUSH? Myself?), but legally keeping inappropriate material from children is derided by the ALA as censorship?
Notice how the censorship was done in a surreptitious manner:
Well, it saddens me that a member of the library profession took exception to @alasecrets and shut it down by logging in and changing the password. They protected the updates thereafter so, supposedly, people couldn’t see them.I'm considering adding these librarians who oppose ALA censorship to my "Good Librarians" page.You’re going to have to pardon my language here but FUCK that. I despise censorship in any form and I especially loathe the idea that a librarian shut down that Twitter account. So I did something about it.
I set up another anonymous Twitter account, @ALASecrets2009. But instead of giving out the password, I’ve set it up so anyone can post to it via SMS or e-mail. ....
Source: "ALA Secrets," by sonorandragon, . .Not All Bits . ., 11 July 2009.
.
I just want to point out that it's not *necessarily* a librarian who tried to censor it. Plus, even if it was an ALA member it may have been more "being an ass" than censoring.
ReplyDeleteI REALLY want to know who posted about my blog to the @alasecrets2009 account though!!!
lol.
chislut, thanks for writing.
ReplyDeleteThis really is an interesting story, isn't it. I hoped you looked at my other blog posts and saw interesting things there as well. Please consider subscribing.
As to your blog, I do not recognize your name at the moment. Please refresh my recollection. Also, feel free to add a link to your blog.
Thanks again.
By the way, I tweeted this blog post to those subscribed to @ALASecrets2009 here: https://twitter.com/ALASecrets2009/status/2626071301 -- it has resulted in a flood of hits.
There is NO evidence that a "member of the library profession" took down the original alasecrets account. It's probably what happened, but there's no evidence whatsoever that the account wasn't grabbed by some random person who came across it in a saved search for something like slut.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, thanks for writing.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
I am, however, trying to figure that out. See my comment at LISNews, "I would be interested to know who shut down the original Twitter feed and why."
I bet you everyone is interested to know.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou said "Don't you love the double standard when the ALA censors people ... " with no evidence or even a suggestion that ALA was involved at all. Is that inaccurate or an intentional lie?
-Chuck
Chuck, thanks for commenting.
ReplyDeleteThe facts are murky, I'll admit that. Perhaps I could have worded it better.
However, the statement is more general in nature, and I point to four possible examples that have nothing to do with the ALA Conference.
Chuck, I know you disagree with me often, but please consider subscribing to my blog.
Thanks.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteAre you are stating that the ALA practiced censorship with regard to all this Twitter foolishness? Which is what you wrote in your post and have not changed or updated. To me, it is not unclear. It's just incorrect.
Chuck
Chuck,
ReplyDeleteI know it's very confusing. Let me look at my statements by extracting the words of others, and I'll highlight possibly relevant text:
============
The following article is very interesting for ALA-ophiles, but I warn you, it (and this blog post) contains salty language and the picture to the right from the site:
....
Dig the part about the likely ALA member censoring other ALA members, then preventing access to past tweets. Don't you love the double standard when the ALA censors people (like Robert Spencer of JihadWatch? Ginny Maziarka of West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries? Greg McClay of SHUSH? Myself?), but legally keeping inappropriate material from children is derided by the ALA as censorship?
Notice how the censorship was done in a surreptitious manner:
....
I'm considering adding these librarians who oppose ALA censorship to my "Good Librarians" page.
============
I talk about a "likely ALA member," not the ALA as a whole. Then, as to the ALA as a whole, I provide four examples that are not related to the current situation. I end up praising librarians who oppose censorship. And when I mentioned "ALA censorship," it was in reference to the four examples, not the Twitter incident.
Based on my review of that, I can now state with 100% certainty that I did not "stat[e] that the ALA practiced censorship with regard to all this Twitter foolishness."
Do you disagree? If so, please specify where I claimed the ALA "practiced censorship with regard to all this Twitter foolishness."
Thanks again.
Interestingly, here is the author (Dan Messer, aka sonorandragon) of @ALASecrets2009 speaking about how and why he set up the new Twitter feed.
ReplyDeleteSee: "LISTen: An LISNews.org Podcast -- Episode #80" beginning at approximately 14:45 and ending around 24:50.
"A culture that was jamming itself!"
Sorry, Dan. It's dishonest gamesmanship and you know it. To compare or discuss two disparate things and never mention how they are different is to conflate the two. Otherwise, why mention it?
ReplyDelete-chuck
Chuck,
ReplyDeleteThey are similar IF, emphasis on IF, IF the ALA was somehow involved in the censorship.
It is perfectly legitimate to point out other possible incidents of censorship by the ALA. And I left out the "drowning" comments by Judith Krug about the jailed Cuban librarians the ALA did nothing about, other than disparage them.
It is perfectly legitimate to believe, under the circumstances, that the ALA was somehow involved.
IF the ALA is directly involved, I would not in the least be surprised.
That is not "dishonest gamesmanship," as you claim. Am I not allowed to draw a comparison?
"If" you like to have sex with goats while dressed like Ronald McDonald, then yes you can draw that comparison.
ReplyDeleteBut only "if" Dan enjoys man-goat love. I can't confirm that.
See my point?
Chuck
It's a baa-baaa-baaad point.
ReplyDelete