4 ms·

You asked whether something had substantially changed, not qualitatively. A change in degree can still be a substantial change. It's the difference between liv

You asked whether something had substantially changed, not qualitatively. A change in degree can still be a substantial change. It's the difference between living in a city with one murder a year, and one hundred murders a day. To the individual killed, the distinction is irrelevant, but in terms of the effect on others, and on the measures taken by the society as a whole, it's everything. But I would also argue there has been a qualitative change, from harassment conducted by isolated individuals, to large scale, organised harassment, as well as an escalation in the tactics used. A malicious Usenet user could not call on an army of globally distributed 4chan trolls to endlessly pursue a particular vendetta. And the much greater integration of technology into institutions means the available methods to harass someone and remotely disrupt their life is far greater.

pc86 10y ago
If the second city has ~36500 times the population, then it's not a change in degree at all. City A is no more or less safe than City B, nor is the police force any more or less effective, etc. There are billions of people on the internet now. How many were using it in the days of Usenet?
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  By a frequentist analysis, which omits complicating factors and may lead to inaccurate conclusions. One obvious thing that a frequentist analysis misses is that the larger the population, the bigger the size of the gang you can summon to harass someone. Getting trolled by 3 or 4 people on Usenet was annoying, but today someone can find their Twitter feed flooded by hundreds of people. The frequency of the harassing activity in the population as a whole may be the same, but the potential impact on a single individual is very different (and don't go trying to tell me it's better because the number of trolls is rising slower than the general population in this made-up example).
  - pessimizer 10y ago
    What you're saying is right (in general, but not in reference to the specific analogy), but I'm not sure what it has to do with a frequentist analysis. Rather, it's a simplistic linear analysis of a higher-order system. Instead of multiplying the number of murders (which is an output, not an input), just multiply the number of potential murderers, with some percentage chance of being triggered to desire to murder a particular individual if encountered. If that chance averages 1%, in a town of 101 people you would have a 50% chance of having at least one person who would want to murder you. In a town of 10,001, you would have a 99.5% chance of having at least one person who would want to murder you. [edit: and in a town of 101, there would be no chance of having more than 100 people who wanted to murder you. In a town of 10,001, you'd be as likely as not to have 100 people would would murder you.] If everyone is exposed to everyone at all times, then everyone is endangered in large groups (seems obvious) even if no one is consistently looking for trouble more than anyone else. If that the qualities that inspire that 1% reaction have a clumpy distribution (either in perpetrator or victim), the experiences that individuals have will be vastly different in an average forum, and when holding the tolerance for danger constant, the least targeted will feel comfortable in far larger towns than the most targeted. Of course, in real life, the larger the town, the higher the level of anonymity. In the case of internet forums, however, 1) smaller groups are being eliminated in favor of larger groups due to finance and economies of scale and 2) there is a profit motive in de-anonymizing users. There's absolutely no degree of moderation that can make it work. Anonymity simply makes the problem disappear. What you said can be targeted, you yourself cannot be.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      Yeah, all of this I agree with. I don't think quality of social interaction depends on identifiability, although FB certainly leveraged its real-name policy as a quality signal from the outset - it made the platform seem more official/professional to the initial target demo.

pc86 10y ago

If the second city has ~36500 times the population, then it's not a change in degree at all. City A is no more or less safe than City B, nor is the police force any more or less effective, etc. There are billions of people on the internet now. How many were using it in the days of Usenet?

anigbrowl 10y ago
By a frequentist analysis, which omits complicating factors and may lead to inaccurate conclusions. One obvious thing that a frequentist analysis misses is that the larger the population, the bigger the size of the gang you can summon to harass someone. Getting trolled by 3 or 4 people on Usenet was annoying, but today someone can find their Twitter feed flooded by hundreds of people. The frequency of the harassing activity in the population as a whole may be the same, but the potential impact on a single individual is very different (and don't go trying to tell me it's better because the number of trolls is rising slower than the general population in this made-up example).
- pessimizer 10y ago
  What you're saying is right (in general, but not in reference to the specific analogy), but I'm not sure what it has to do with a frequentist analysis. Rather, it's a simplistic linear analysis of a higher-order system. Instead of multiplying the number of murders (which is an output, not an input), just multiply the number of potential murderers, with some percentage chance of being triggered to desire to murder a particular individual if encountered. If that chance averages 1%, in a town of 101 people you would have a 50% chance of having at least one person who would want to murder you. In a town of 10,001, you would have a 99.5% chance of having at least one person who would want to murder you. [edit: and in a town of 101, there would be no chance of having more than 100 people who wanted to murder you. In a town of 10,001, you'd be as likely as not to have 100 people would would murder you.] If everyone is exposed to everyone at all times, then everyone is endangered in large groups (seems obvious) even if no one is consistently looking for trouble more than anyone else. If that the qualities that inspire that 1% reaction have a clumpy distribution (either in perpetrator or victim), the experiences that individuals have will be vastly different in an average forum, and when holding the tolerance for danger constant, the least targeted will feel comfortable in far larger towns than the most targeted. Of course, in real life, the larger the town, the higher the level of anonymity. In the case of internet forums, however, 1) smaller groups are being eliminated in favor of larger groups due to finance and economies of scale and 2) there is a profit motive in de-anonymizing users. There's absolutely no degree of moderation that can make it work. Anonymity simply makes the problem disappear. What you said can be targeted, you yourself cannot be.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Yeah, all of this I agree with. I don't think quality of social interaction depends on identifiability, although FB certainly leveraged its real-name policy as a quality signal from the outset - it made the platform seem more official/professional to the initial target demo.