5 ms·
You overestimate people's ability not to be offended, and underestimate the diversity in people's actual beliefs. For example: When someone on HN said over the
by benten10 11y ago
You overestimate people's ability not to be offended, and underestimate the diversity in people's actual beliefs.
For example: When someone on HN said over the weekend "I don't see anything inherently wrong with colonialism. Remember that scene from Monty Python -- What have the Romans done for us? A lot of good has come out of colonialism", I was almost certain (almost) it was trolling. Once I saw others agreeing, I reconsidered. What you may consider trolling, may be the other idiot's actual views.
I bring this often on HN, and I will do so again: such trolls (and people who actually believe what they say) are really really threatening to the internet, and everything it has mostly stood up for. When every woman is threatened with rape and murder, and every person of minority is humiliated (often under the pretension of 1) irony, as in reddit, and 2) strictly unemotional data-based Vulcan objectivity (as is often the case here)) , the internet loses its most powerful component: the diverse group of people using it.
I absolutely believe <500 low-paid shills with medium-level English can bring down sites like the likes of reddit. Bringing down does not mean putting them out of business -- that's rather incidental -- it means creating fear and terror amongst a large part of the users to convince them that the majority of the internet is against them -- the internet is not the place for them. It is not just threatening women or minorities, obviously -- it could also be pretending to be an extremist feminist, and suggesting men should be hanged, burned etc, provoking the other group, and causing conflicts.
This is the issue why a lot of platforms have struggled with harassment and bullying issues, and it tickles me when the HN crowd --predominantly libertarian-- drones on about 'free speech at any cost' (suggesting that any removal of extremely offensive content is tantamount to utter censorship), not realizing that an absolute free-for-all arena is most likely to be used by the parties with the most available resource to shape the conversation easily. To put it differently, if Russian trolls can reshape (partly?) the conversation, so can the American government, and so can any agency, with enough resources. To reiterate, it is not necessary to completely change people's point of view -- just scare a targeted population away from a location, and identifying that is NOT as simple as 'calling out the trolls'.
I'll offload something tangential too here. When women say 'there are issues for women in technology', fellow HN users, the least correct response is to offer 'well maybe if they worked harder instead of wasting time complaining, they'd have less issues'. That actually happened in one of the last few discussions about women in tech.
- talmand 11y ago>> What you may consider trolling, may be the other idiot's actual views. It seems to me this statement is quite unfair. Does it mean that if I think you're trolling it also means I can label you as an idiot? It's not just that you disagree with them, you get to label them with whatever derogatory term you want as well? >> such trolls (and people who actually believe what they say) are really really threatening to the internet No, they don't. What's threatening the internet as a bastion of free speech are people who don't understand the consequences of free speech and believe everything that they see on the internet. Then they feel the need to tell other people what they may or may not say based on their misguided notions of what free speech is. >> suggesting that any removal of extremely offensive content is tantamount to utter censorship It is censorship. It's almost literally the definition of censorship. I'm not saying censorship doesn't have it's place, but you are being misleading by suggesting that removing a person's comment is not censorship. As for coordinated trolls attempting to remove a site from discussion; you are absolutely correct. It is a problem. But I don't understand how the solution to that problem is to discuss removing people's rights of free expression. If a site wants to remove people's comments, so be it, but your type of rhetoric eventually leads to people demanding laws. Those laws almost always turn out bad for everyone, people are just too short-sighted to see it. Also, who are you to define the "least correct response" to anything when hardly anyone knows the other people here? I disagree with that statement, but I don't feel I have the right to tell them they can't make it.
- icebraining 11y agoDoes it mean that if I think you're trolling it also means I can label you as an idiot? I think what was meant is that people saying idiotic things are not always trolls (who are just trying to stir up an argument), they may actually be idiots. And yes, of course one may label others as idiots; it might be uncouth when said or written publicly, but that's each person's call.
- talmand 11y agoOh, don't get me wrong, I agree that one can label another as an idiot. It's just that I require a greater deal of proof than "that person disagrees with me" to believe someone's label of another person they don't know.