So, WordPress.com’s official position to people who don’t want that banner is “Fuck you, we do.” I’m not joking.
This is WordPress.com’s official stance, you are not allowed to remove it and requests to remove it will not be accommodated.
Specifically, they say that: “We absolutely respect your right to publish the content you choose to your site, but the navigation bar styling reflects WordPress.com’s stance as a company, and can not be disabled on request. ”
One of the more hostile responses shows up here. Staff responses have been to pretty much say ‘this question has already been answered, and the thread will be closed.’ It is very clear that WordPress.com – which is in control of the ‘log in with WordPress’ part and includes the reader banner – considers that the rights of other people are not as worthy of consideration as a certain group’s. Here’s an example of staff response that pretty much is ‘get lost.’
As per Sight Magazine’s article on this matter:
The banner, which was spotted on sites over the weekend, appears at the top of sites when users are logged in. In comments sent to several WordPress users who raised the issue via the organisation’s online support service, ‘rootjosh’, described as a member of staff, said that to “show our support for marriage equality, we’re showing the rainbow bar to all our Australian visitors”. He added that it would remain in place until the survey results are released.
“We absolutely respect your right to publish the content you choose to your site, but the navigation bar styling reflects WordPress.com’s stance as a company…” he said. “If this causes you to choose to leave WordPress.com, we’re sorry to see you go.”
So in other words, ‘Fuck you, and feel free to fuck off.’ (Oh and if you are moving, they’ll help you move!)
Comments to the above article of note are as follows:
I was so confused, I thought it was my browser playing up. I personally fully support SSM but I really don’t think that this is what a commercial business should be imposing on their customers especially as I pay for my subscription. I would have thought a far better approach would have been to ask us to opt in to the scheme – how difficult would that have been?
Another comment says outright that this action will push them to vote ‘no’
I don’t intend to leave WordPress, but I may end up voting No *just because they did this* – because it shows the coercive and arrogant way in which these campaigns for social transformation are being conducted, and also the extent to which they emanate from outside Australia, which has been digitally colonized by the American “cloud”.
But you see, opting in is not an option that was ever wanted – Support or else! There are others opting to leave.
The irony is, the SSM supporters actually didn’t want the postal vote to happen. Some of the reasons include monetary concerns, while others include purely political ones. As I noted in my previous post, my own reason for not wanting the banner were actually physical – by straining my eyes and dragging it up involuntarily away from the text that I am either reading or typing, simply because the splash of unexpected and distracting color. I’ve been having such severe headaches and eyestrain that actually kept me from doing work, sleeping well, and eating properly for days. I’m only starting to get over it.
All because dissent is considered wrong, people with valid reasons that have nothing to do with politics or SSM will be driven away from any sort of support.
So the Housemate came up with a perfectly valid solution, for those of us – including myself – who are not versed in code wizardry.
The former Prime Minister told The Australian any changes to the social institution of marriage will result in wider consequences for the country…
Howard believes marriage equality is not about a “single” right and has called for the proposed same-sex marriage legislation to be produced before the postal survey closes in November to ensure the protection of parents, religion and free speech.
“People are entitled to know there are sufficient protections for people affected by those changes and the public is entitled to know what those protections are,” Mr Howard told The Australian.
He warned proposed protections for the rights of other Australians would be given “scant regard” if the ‘Yes’ vote succeeded and legislation was pushed through parliament.
The attitude of the ‘Yes’ supporters are showing that he’s right about the scant regard being given to others.
Personally I’m somewhat surprised at how vocal the ‘No’ side is being – I rather thought that the whole thing would show who the actual majority is when the vote happens. From discussions happening RL I’m hearing more people say outright that they will vote no – and the implication is they don’t like the implicit thought policing, opinion denying, and screaming at people who do have valid objections. They don’t like being forced to care.
One of the valid objections that have been held about SSM is that agreeing to it will open the doors to being forced to agree about other forms of relationships, such as voluntary group marriages and incestuous relationships. I remember being told that this was a fearmongering view, and that trying to argue even on cautionary terms was bigoted and wrong minded.
Well, funny how that works out because in the trend of all the cautionary discussions I’ve had, I’m being proven right yet again.
Sooooo in other words, being made to accept Islam’s polygynous marriage? Oh wait, that’s not what they want, right? It’s just ‘equality’ – except that it’s not as easy as they make it out to be, and certainly far, far more complicated than they want us to think.
The thing that most people might find strange is I think the decision to have an open marriage is a decision a married couple should have on their own. I don’t think they should be legalised simply because it doesn’t just affect the adults involved, but also children and property – say, in the case of a divorce from a group, who are the parents? How is parenthood defined here? Etc. But with the current system, it’s clear that parenthood lies with the biological ties, unless one gives up custody (see, successful step-parenting for examples.)
Getting the legal system involved here would make it very, very messy, even messier than current divorces and custody disputes currently are.
Currently there is nothing to stop say, two married couples from moving in together and having whatever sexual arrangements they want. They are able to designate power of attorney if they so wish, to the other couple, but that’s just touching on the legal complications of having four people involved. This example is assuming that there are no children and they have no intention of having children, but I figure that will not remain true forever. Where does the individual’s legal status end, and the group one take over? And again, what about children, and properties, as well as custodial and inheritance issues?
They haven’t thought it through.