Wil used and popularised Randi Harper's personal blocklist after ggautoblocker stopped being maintained and Randi Harper's list ended up with a bunch of trans attacktivists on it after they took exception to her saying something positive about Jesse Singal because he'd written something positive about Alice Dreher's book which analyzed the attacks on a couple of people by the extreme-SJ lot and didn't sufficiently condemn the targets as evil in the process (because that wasn't what she was analyzing but, yeah, well, the internet).

The result was lots of people whose only crime was having yelled at Randi getting blocked by lots of people unrelated to Randi who were just trying to rid their timeline of nazis and etc. - and a bunch of those people were artists who now couldn't easily contact potential employers via twitter, which apparently (in the sense that I know nothing about this, not that I disbelieve this) put a serious crimp in their careers.

So a bunch of people experienced wildly disproportionate consequences for a single moment of anger online, as collateral damage from Wil trying to do something he considered good, and he's apologised for it but some people still believe he's transphobic because they don't feel the apology was commensurate to the degree of damage caused even if the damage was accidental.

I don't really have a take away here apart from "we have no idea how to do personal social media environment curation in a way that works yet". Mostly I just feel kinda sorry for everybody screwed over by the situation, including the subset I otherwise dislike.

So, in other words, he personally didn't do anything to "ruin the lives" of anyone.

He trusted someone that shouldn't have been trusted and in turn people trusted that his judgment was sound when it wasn't because Wil is more interested in playing the role correctly than to actually affect change or get in touch with those who can.

I'm sorry, there are a lot of people doing good work for social justice. Harper has never been one of them. There are those who use the platform of social justice to further their own brand and aren't actually concerned about getting people rights.

It's unfortunate that those people's careers were affected by getting on the wrong side of a vindictive bully, but I wouldn't call it Wil's fault. And I find it funny that Wil is getting the heat for it when it wasn't his list.

I think the argument is that he promoted somebody's personal blocklist as a general blocklist, and that this therefore made him culpable. Which I think was a judgement failure on his part, but not necessarily a trust related one, and I don't find the culpability part of the argument particularly convincing.

Note also that I said "the subset of people involved I dislike" to try and keep my opinions separate; I'm unsure why you're responding as if I'm supporting any specific person involved when I've merely done my best to outline the situation as I understand it.

I will admit to have had you confused with the person I originally asked, so there is some minor conflation there. That's my bad. I asked them a direct question and you responded instead.

They said it was his blocklist that he put these people on. And that simply by being on his blocklist, their lives were ruined.

That's not the same story you told me.

And ignores the part where Harper was promoting her blocklist as a superior version of ggautoblocker. She encouraged people to promote it. So to say it's his fault for promoting a "personal" list also feels hollow.

He trusted Randi. That was a mistake. People blindly trusted the list he promoted. That was also a mistake. There's a degree of personal responsibility that everybody who used that list without verifying the content shoulders.

The story I told is the story as I understand it, from reading a smattering of articles from various viewpoints. I suspect many people have largely heard the story from a giant game of telephone on twitter, and as such details and nuance have been lost and distorted.

Note that when I describe what I think the argument somebody's making is, that doesn't mean I endorse the argument, merely that I'm trying to explain what the argument is.

I'm not taking a position on "fault", all things considered.

The bit that's new to me is "popularized". How popular was this block list and how much of the popularity of it could be attributed to Wil?

Also, do people really contact potential employers through Twitter and don't have an alternative like email?

He was apparently patient zero for the list's spread through hollywood and other creative industry twitter.

Beyond that, no idea - I'm a bystander who happened to've read a few articles giving various points of view on this and have pieced together what I hope is an accurate 10,000ft view, but YMMV definitely applies.

AIUI it's even worse than that. According to a tweet thread I read, he actually ran his own personal blocklist that imported Randi Harper's blocklist, but also included pretty much anybody that annoyed him, for such tiny infractions as making a star trek reference at him on Twitter, or just being "rude". He personally blocked a bunch of trans artists whose Patreon and SoundCloud incomes subsequently dropped to zero.

The whole story sounds completely ridiculous.

Probably the best option for people who value their sanity is to just not associate with anyone involved in these nonsense Twitter dramas.