LA Times reports Violet Blue vs Boing Boing web "sh*tstorm"

I saw that occasional SF Metblogs contributor and relentless self promoter and sex book author Violet Blue is the latest recipient of the tempest in a web teapot award. The LA Times website has David Sarno covering a fracas in which any Violet Blue mentions or posts have been deleted from Boing Boing and it’s archives.

Writes Sarno:

“I’ve been wracking my brain thinking of what issues I might’ve come down on the wrong side of,” Blue told me on the phone. “There’s been no argument, there’s been no disagreement, no flame war, none of the usual things.”

Could Boing Boing really be a Stalin era throwback that wants to erase it’s own history, and somehow have the world to believe the widely read SF Gate columnist doesn’t exist?

At AdRants they speculated a possible conflict with blog ad provider Federated Media, which seemed somewhat unlikely to be involved in editorial concerns (IMHO ) since they supply ads for dozens of popular sites including the Metblogs network.

BoingBoing eventually issued it’s own terse comment and explanation after the web “sh*tstorm” lapped up on it’s serenely acerbic shores:

“[Violet’s] posts were removed from public view a year ago. Violet behaved in a way that made us reconsider whether we wanted to lend her any credibility or associate with her. It’s our blog and so we made an editorial decision, like we do every single day. We didn’t attempt to silence Violet. We unpublished our own work. There’s a big difference between that and censorship.”

Read the LA times blog, or for a more concise semi ad biz related wrap up read more at AdRants.

3 Comments so far

  1. Kaili (kailiotter) on July 1st, 2008 @ 1:14 pm

    Yeah, that’s called "self-censorship"

  2. David Markland (markland) on July 1st, 2008 @ 8:35 pm

    This whole thing is bothersome. Boing Boing is the #3 blog on Technorati, with phenomenal reach and influence. They set many standards.

    Alas, it appears they’ve deleted all mentions of Violet because they don’t want to be associated with her. Thats pretty lame. I could understand not mentioning her any more, but erasing previous support is deceptive.

    If Boing Boing is going to delete posts for this reason, whats to keep them to delete previous posts about companies they find are cruddy? Or perhaps delete negative articles because in order to attract advertisers? Or simply to delete entries or comments they’ve made because it may be embarassing?

    Sure, Boing Boing can do whatever they hell it wants. But I’d have expected higher standards over there.

  3. Kaili (kailiotter) on July 2nd, 2008 @ 8:53 am

    I am beyond curious as to what "behavior" this could be referring to… it’s kinda killing me slowly…

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.