Sea lioning can be malicious but isn't always. It describes a behavior, not a motive.
Graham tweeted 4 tweets in 2 minutes to "correct" her misunderstanding of the site. That reads as aggression on Twitter. Graham has tweeted 200 times and the person who complained has tweeted > 70k times. Probably, Graham doesn't understand Twitter norms. That's SE's problem. They tried to address it (but poorly and without fully understanding the interaction; agreed there).
Graham acted in good faith, but he made the situation worse. The SE employee who responded also acted in good faith, and ALSO made the situation worse.
Those titles are offensive because they are interjecting sex into someone's workspace. Full stop, that's the reason. Sex is an inappropriate topic at work, and SO is primarily used for work (and school).
And in tech, sex is so prevalent! It's exhausting to constantly be watching out for SURPRISE SEX TALK, so seeing it on SO and just closing your browser window and never going there again is a completely understandable experience to me.
I agree; the best reaction would have been to remove the hot questions list rather than to remove a single site from it. Perhaps they will. Perhaps we'll have to keep pointing out how stripping questions of their context alienates people from SE.
But to be honest, to see AN ACTION TAKEN in response to a complaint about sexism at a tech company (even if it wasn't the best possible action) was such a relief to me. Thank goodness a company in the tech industry (that I donated my labor to!) takes this stuff seriously!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2018-11-26 09:39 pm (UTC)Graham tweeted 4 tweets in 2 minutes to "correct" her misunderstanding of the site. That reads as aggression on Twitter. Graham has tweeted 200 times and the person who complained has tweeted > 70k times. Probably, Graham doesn't understand Twitter norms. That's SE's problem. They tried to address it (but poorly and without fully understanding the interaction; agreed there).
Graham acted in good faith, but he made the situation worse.
The SE employee who responded also acted in good faith, and ALSO made the situation worse.
Those titles are offensive because they are interjecting sex into someone's workspace. Full stop, that's the reason. Sex is an inappropriate topic at work, and SO is primarily used for work (and school).
And in tech, sex is so prevalent! It's exhausting to constantly be watching out for SURPRISE SEX TALK, so seeing it on SO and just closing your browser window and never going there again is a completely understandable experience to me.
I agree; the best reaction would have been to remove the hot questions list rather than to remove a single site from it. Perhaps they will. Perhaps we'll have to keep pointing out how stripping questions of their context alienates people from SE.
But to be honest, to see AN ACTION TAKEN in response to a complaint about sexism at a tech company (even if it wasn't the best possible action) was such a relief to me. Thank goodness a company in the tech industry (that I donated my labor to!) takes this stuff seriously!