Doesn't look like it's been mentioned yet but there is very related project called Online Abuse Prevention Initiative (OAPI http://onlineabuseprevention.org/). It would be a good idea to talk to them in addition to what you are already doing.
I would strongly advise against backing OAPI. The CEO & founder is Randi Harper. Her online persona is quite hostile, and she is often the instigator of online harassment. One of my acquaintances was the target of her ire. Her e-mails and call-outs eventually caused him to seek psychiatric help, including medication.
So while I support the goal of OAPI, I think the founding members have attitudes that hurt the cause more than help it. I wish there was an organization I could recommend instead, but so far I haven't found anything. If anyone knows of alternatives, I'm all ears.
I'm sorry if you think I'm part of the problem, but I don't see how those two points relate to my comment. Heck, I agree with pretty much everything shkyes said.
I didn't know labelling Randi Harper a harasser was a gamergate tactic. I know almost nothing about this whole gamergate business. I just visited the OAPI's site and recognized the name Randi Harper from my acquaintance's experience. He had a very rough time because of her emails, Facebook messages, and tweets. For that reason and that reason alone, I voiced my concern. I don't have any other motive.
Digging deeper, I see that Harper herself has been on the receiving end of some outright egregious behavior. I can only express my condolences for her and condemnation for her attackers.
Still, it seems to me that her organization will likely cause more harm than good in curbing online abuse. One can feel sympathy for another human being while also doubting their fit for a position.
But honestly, this whole topic is radioactive. No matter one's opinion or how delicately it is put, it gets misconstrued and pigeonholed. It's impossible to have an honest, nuanced conversation.
2. Unsubstantiated smears, and categorising her as "hostile". You're using an anonymous "throwaway" account, so there's no evidence whatsoever for your claims.
5. Downplaying the extreme harassment as "egregious behavior". Perhaps you (or anyone reading) might want to go look it up yourself, there's pages and pages of this sort of unbelievably obnoxious drivel: https://twitter.com/search?q=%40freebsdgirl%20%23gamergate&s...
The only reason that Randi created GGAutoblocker and the OAPI was because she was targeted by gamergate. And their tactics are, essentially, what you're doing right now - smear tactics.
Throwaway? My account is over 5 years years old. Please look at my comment history.[1] I'm not a troll or a single-issue commenter. I use a pseudonym because sometimes I want to say things that I believe to be true, but would cause me unnecessary grief if attached to my real name.
"Egregious" is downplaying? I used one of the strongest adjectives I could think of. Replace it with synonyms: their behavior is appalling, shocking, atrocious, abhorrent. I do not support them. I think they are terrible people. I cannot condemn them any more strongly than I already have. Please stop insinuating that I'm part of such a despicable group.
I'm glad Randi Harper created GGAutoblocker. I support the idea behind OAPI. I just don't think Harper is the right person for the job, as she has said some very not-nice things to someone I know, and it significantly impacted his quality of life.
I want the same thing as you: For people to converse without becoming targets of harassment, abuse, threats, or otherwise extremely unpleasant or dangerous communication. That's why I'm voicing my concern about the founder of OAPI. There is no other motive at work.
As I said before: No matter one's opinion or how delicately it is put, it gets misconstrued and pigeonholed. It's impossible to have an honest, nuanced conversation.
How can I disagree with you any more civilly than I already am? Yet despite such civility, I have to deal with implications that I'm part of an odious group of trolls and psychopaths.
Ok, fair enough, you want to keep HN and your personal life separate. And you may be otherwise sincere (at least, you seem to be based on your posts), but that separation makes anything that you post hearsay unless you can back it up externally. You should probably take that into account when trying to bring things from your personal life over into HN.
So perhaps rather than continuing the same pattern of "Randi bad, because I say so", perhaps you can point out somewhere where she's currently failing? I also note that OAPI is more than just Randi, there are several people involved: http://onlineabuseprevention.org/
I was curious, so I clicked on the Twitter search link you posted. This conversation took place between between Randi and a developer (Johannes Meixner a.k.a. xmj):
randi> xmj: kindly go fuck yourself.
randi> step the fuck back.
randi> jesus fuck, are you a gamergater?
randi> you are going on twitter and starting shit, and you just brought freebsd into it
randi> and now you're coming after me with bullshit on twitter that you won't even back up
randi> go. fuck. yourself.
randi> xmj: you're a fucking disservice to the project.
randi> and to open source in general.
randi> except you decided to get involved and talk shit to me and talk shit about code of condcuts
randi> i wouldn't have even known who you were had you not decided to be a dumbshit.
randi> you're giving the project a bad name
randi> and you should take it out of your bio on twitter.
randi> you grow up, you piece of shit.
randi> jesus
randi> another privileged dumbass
randi> whatever, dude. i'm emailing the foundation about you. they have a big push right now to try to get more women into the project, and your kind of public bullshit is the perfect example of why there isn't.
randi> go fuck yourself.
All I can say is, hopefully Randi learns something about her own behavior from the anti-abuse work she's undertaking.
Just so you know, the OAPI is run by Randi Harper, who herself has harassed many people. Most notably Vivek Wadhwa and Claire Schumann, but there are more names on that list.
I wish you luck in tracking down the guilty parties. Threats are not okay, no matter who makes them.
I'm not a particular follower of Randi's and still couldn't help but see the Vivek stuff going on. I wouldn't have labeled it harassment; what I saw was a loud and unrelenting public call for accountability. I don't believe she threatened, doxxed, or otherwise harassed him. Do you know differently?
What I would call harassment is that Randi was doxxed as well as swatted, seemingly by the same sort of folks involved in this situation. She seems to have decided to aggressively stand up for her rights and the rights of others.
I'm sure that makes many uncomfortable, some so much so that they create new profiles in social media to comment on it without risking their reputation. Which is fair, though you have to ask yourself why.
Fair, and we can disagree. I'll say that I'm not a fan of urging people to die in fires.
However, it's noteworthy that her review made several clear statements, some opinion and some fact, in her own name. She didn't resort to ad hominem attacks, nor doxxing, nor swatting. And evidently 370 of 1218 people found it useful in some way.
Also noteworthy that Stop the Goodread Bullies isn't a balanced, objective news source. Their coverage makes clear that SJW is a pejorative term that equates to bullying[1]; that they're happy to damn with innuendo rather than fact[2] and they're seemingly okay with pulling quotes out of context[3]. The only mention of Vox Day, who has participated in the same bullying review activity[4], is in the article you shared. Ergo, I'd tend to say they're not unbiased.
Still, they're not aking lewd suggestions or threatening peoples' lives, so I'm glad they're out there working to represent their opinions directly.
As I mentioned, I'm not a particular follower of hers; I guess I should have mentioned I'm also not her apologist.
Sorry I can't answer your question. I don't know what she was doing in that tweet; you provided no context. It's clear you believe you have the answer, though, and that you care enough to create a throwaway account; pull up a four year old tweet; and present in a discussion that really isn't about Randi. Seems like she's important to you.
It was covered on FLOSSWeekly earlier this year (https://soundcloud.com/twit/floss-weekly-331-oapi).