Michael Connor says, on Rhizome, "I'm ... a bit dismayed by your attack on closed Facebook discussions."
That's a classic diversionary argument. I guess he means this post. My reply:
I didn't say that "every viewpoint, however unpopular, must be expressed in full public view." As you say, the parameters of [Rhizome's] "archiving" [of social media discussions] haven't been defined yet. Some form of "monitoring" [those] channels (as in auditing, listening to, finding some way to parse) is badly needed, if that's the new place for discourse. We've talked about this -- now you're putting an Orwellian spin on my words.
Heather alludes to "debates" from those channels that touched off your tweet and this post. You should at least summarize the high points. You don't have to say who said what.
Facebook itself is not public! Ripps has said his discussion was "friends only."
Art F City applied a double standard by liberally screenshotting from Ripps' discussion, and yet scrupulously refusing to copy the complaints against his project from a "private, women-only Facebook group."
You made your own assessment, in writing this post, based on what you could read of Ryder's comments (that I did not have access to) but not his accusers'.
This is a perfect example of why some kind of etiquette needs to be worked out in copying, referring to, or, yes "monitoring" social media art discussions.