Comments: 19
Wait, DA had an article about this, too? Must go read. I saw SB's article already through Twitter.
Spare Ammo 4 years ago
You want to really know how I feel about all those who feel Hale is brave and heroic? I want some animal-killing loony tune to start stalking each and every one of them. I want them to cower behind locked doors and flee their home to hide out somewhere they think they might feel safe. I want them to have to weigh every action and decide if they feel safe enough to do it. Let it go on for a year or so and then they can come back and tell me how brave and heroic Hale is.

They are a bunch of idiots who believe that if something bad happens to you you must deserve it and they will continue to think it and encourage that thinking in others up to and even after someone gets hurt.

You may talk about my morally bankrupt attention seeking caller anywhere you want, she is tweeting encourage to her fellow sufferer, Margo Howard.

Unapologetic Reviews 4 years ago
I don't see how this is Goodread's fault. I mean, the author didn't get to her through Goodreads, but figured out where she was based on Twitter and Instagram, and some other stuff. It did mention in the article that there was a paid background check done as well.
That's not the point. Goodreads would rather everyone shut the hell up about author behavior. So basically, they'll turn a blind eye to stalking. What Spare Ammo is saying is that as a reader who cares about such issues, she wants to know.

I want to know, too. I want to know if I read and dislike Hale's book, that I can expect her to come to my house. Or that it's not outside the realm of possibility.

Goodreads will punish those who say so, however. Is Goodreads at fault? Yes for turning a blind eye. That's like saying they're good, they just ignored it. Edmund Burke said all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. That is, if like Goodreads, all social media that revolves books disallowed us saying this is not good, then Hale could potentially do this damage with no one the wiser. Or at least not as many people.

In my opinion, Goodreads may not have been a platform but they are the good men who do nothing. I have no respect for them at this point.
Unapologetic Reviews 4 years ago
I don't see how Goodreads would know about what she was doing. I know you can't post anything about author behaviour on the site, that would be good, but it would be like being judge and jury, taking sides, and I can understand that they can't do that. It figures that they would stay neutral in things like these. One solution would be if there could be articles linked to the author, and that way everyone could read the source material and judge for themselves.
Goodreads doesn't want to know; they want to muzzle anyone who wants to talk about it. That's the point.

And they /can/ do it. They don't want to because it would harm author sales. For a site that says it caters to the readers, they've shown time and again that they don't care about them.

Linda Hilton had an amazing breakdown of reviews and shelves, and pretty much showed how it would be very likely that they were priming the site for a profitable sale in the end. And again, Goodreads doesn't want the site linked anywhere on that site. Are readers in danger? They don't care. They really don't, because it would hurt their bottom line. They would prefer that readers live in a vacuum, and if they get stalked, welp, at least the authors made sales! (I'm guessing they hope via Amazon.)

Spare Ammo, and I, are condemning them for turning a blind eye. I'm saying that they're hobbling readers from learning about dangerous authors, and that if someone reads and reviews on Goodreads - as opposed to Leafmarks or Booklikes - and that if they do end up harmed by an author, that, yes, we partly blame Goodreads for keeping the information that would have kept that reader safe out of sight. I don't know how to explain it anymore clearly. Goodreads doesn't need to know anything, doesn't need to post links, they just need to care about reader safety more than authors making money.
Obsidian, I'm not sure blocking someone on BL makes you invisible to them.
Nope. I was trying to remember how I knew. I'd been blocked by someone I thought was a friend, and couldn't understand why my comments wouldn't go through.

Haven't been onto her page as of late, so not sure if this is still true or not.

Just checked for you. Yup, I can still see her blog!
That it does. I'm glad of that, at least.
Spare Ammo 4 years ago
I don't want them to say anything but I want the option to put such behavior into my review. I can't ignore this out of control behavior and I want to warn anyone else that doesn't know. If I do this on GR now they will ban me.

Because my talking about getting harassed by an author or someone else getting stalked by one is against their reviewing policy.

GR doesn't have to say a word, they just have to stop not letting the reviewers not say a word.