(I believe this is relevant to /r/MensRights because MR sites have been the primary target of this kind of thing lately.)

The dosomething campaign to get the kickstarter to remove that seduction writer's book freaked me out. Not because it involves seduction -- I have nothing to do with that community. It bothered me because it is so clearly anti-democratic; a group of people have legitimately funded a book, and these people think that if they simply assemble in a large enough group, they can get whatever they want. I was really interested in mob psychology in college and learned to avoid succumbing to impulses like that; these are people who not only do not care that they're behaving as a mob but think it's great.

It's very obvious that when SJAs act, most of them do so without concern for the system they're creating. By this I mean they don't seem to care about the ramifications of a particular policy or rule; they only care about the thing that rule or policy is designed to prevent, or the thing that rule/policy can be used to prevent. They don't seem to consider abuses of a rule's broad wording or what a malicious person can do with a poorly-defined enforcement system.

Hate speech legislation is an obvious example: if "hate speech" isn't defined and it's up to the enforcer to interpret what that means, anything even vaguely angry could be classified as "hate speech" and someone could have their speech taken down because it's "hateful." And since the people enforcing these things often don't bother to specifically define their terms, usually a mob is enough to get the enforcer to remove something.

I think we're becoming conscious of this sort of behavior, though, and it's only a matter of time before frivolous reports are ingrained in the public's consciousness due to the effect of kneejerk mob-reporting/rulebombing.

The people who are willing to use rule loophole reports as a method of takedown/practical censorship don't seem to have any sort of desire for intellectual consistency though, so here is what I think will happen, based on what has happened on SRSSucks, TumblrInAction and elsewhere when we don't remove things that SJAs definitely want removed:

  • They will try to make some sort of "hate harborer" listing if they don't do this already. I'm sure you could do this in real life and a bunch of so-called progressive campaigns would blithely jump on board with it. This would be a list of anyone who didn't support their takedown requests. The definition of "hate" doesn't have to be accurate, and they know this: as long as "hate" carries the weight that it does currently, they can use it as a libel machine. Large mediums like reddit would of course be immune from this, but smaller webforums/communities would not.

  • They will try to create some kind of hate registry alongside the sex offender registry, where any kind of violation of their incredibly broad definition of "hate" constitutes inclusion on this list. Naturally, this would mirror the way SRS has a super broad definition of racism that includes (a) everything normal people would deem racist (b) a million things normal people wouldn't deem racist. But normal people probably won't be included on this list very often; instead, it will be like the way SRS does it where 5% of the people have done something hateful and the rest are normal people who either disagreed with them or were taken out of context. And of course, anyone arguing for this kind of registry would list the close-and-shut cases of the 5%, completely ignoring the abuses of a list of this kind. If you argue against the list, you're "pro-hate."

  • If this went far enough and enough of the public got on board with it, they surely wouldn't be against bluelisting via google maps pins anyone who was included on these lists. I could imagine someone creating iPhone apps that alert you when you're in a "hate area" of your city, or someone creating a "pro-hate businesses" list that strongly discourages them from hiring anyone who they have deemed unacceptable.

After being involved with these people for a year, I don't find any of these situations impossible. Unlikely, but only because these activists can't do it, not because they don't want to do it. The main thing stopping them is that the public largely does not take them seriously, and they seem ridiculous when exposed. But this may not always be the case; the 18-30 generation takes them far more seriously and this generation could, one day, be in power, where these kinds of people have a chance to actually implement their backward ideas.