14 ms·

> "Modern left" leaning groups are so easy to disrupt and destroy it is child's play. that is not my experience at all, modern left leaning groups instantly ba

> "Modern left" leaning groups are so easy to disrupt and destroy it is child's play. that is not my experience at all, modern left leaning groups instantly ban people with even slightly different opinions.

sugarpile 10y ago
Nah, that's amateur hour. They're easy to disrupt because if you throw out a piece of fake or mostly fake information that accedes to some viewpoint they hold holy they'll throw themselves into a rabid fury without much thought. For an example just look at the 0-60 leg humping of lyft they did last week because of that selectively true uber story. All that despite Icahn and Thiel each having 9 (?) figures invested in lyft. L to the ol.
- Benjamin_Dobell 10y ago
  Trolling? :P
- scrollaway 10y ago
  This is true for just about any superficial community, which reddit is full of. Clickbait driven logic.
- breatheoften 10y ago
  It is absolutely a biased perspective to pretend that left leaning communities are more likely to be "rabidly supportive" of fake news that conforms to their worldview than right leaning communities. Right leaning community discourse is almost entirely oblique references to trigger topics and meme images that use simplistic analogies to pattern match against the audiences worldview.
- CM30 10y ago
  Or for another example, look at this story and how the folks against GamerGate responded to it: https://medium.com/@mombot/zachattack-how-i-tricked-anti-harassment-advocates-into-doxing-me-4d9f055e2738#.gsld186qa https://medium.com/@mombot/zachattack-how-i-tricked-anti-har... All it took was a bit of fake evidence and a story these people wanted to believe (that someone they disliked 'wasn't a minority'), and suddenly you had a whole bunch of people looking like idiots and making fools of themselves. So easy to then ramp this up to focus on someone in the activist's/extremists' own community and hey, the whole group is now up in flames over a fabricated story.
  - breatheoften 10y ago
    I'm not familiar with GamerGate. Can you explain this story? From reading the article I make some inferences and try to explain what I understood -- I explain below just to illustrate what I understand coming from a place of zero information on the topic -- please clarify and correct my understanding as presented. GamerGate is a movement of some kind (I actually have no idea what they support) that began deploying an attack called 'doxing' (which I understand involves publicly disclosing the identity behind social media personas in order that real life attacks/intimidation can be conducted against the actual humans) against people they are against. Anti-GamerGate is a movement with the agenda to 'dox the GamerGate doxxers'. The above article claims to be an account of how two individuals worked together to convince anti-GamerGaters to dox a fake identity and in the process uncovered the identity of the anti-GamerGaters and proceeded to 'dox' them with that information. What I'm failing to undestand is how exactly this proves anything about left-leaning groups in general? Is it your position that coordinated deployment of fake information can only be used against communities with certain philosophical properties commonly identified as 'liberal'? In your opinion what kind of information would be required to prove this perspective? Do you have evidence to support the idea that communities with a different philosophical leaning would not succumb to such a coordinated mis-information campaign?
CJefferson 10y ago
That means that get rid of unintelligent trolls -- the best trolls are the one who hang around and worm their ways into position of power, so they can do the banning.
justinlaster 10y ago
My experience has been people who claim they're banned from groups for espousing different opinions actually did so in the least constructive way possible. They weren't banned for the opinion, they were banned for their conduct. See: Reddit. With the notable exception of alt-right subs like /r/The_Donald -- who apparently have no issue with banning anyone they even _think_ is going against the hive mind.
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  That's true. People complain about being banned, and then it turns out that they called someone's mother a hamster. Not that there isn't some awful part of me thinks it's a little bit funny to tweet gay porn at the alt-right, but if you do something like that, than don't complain about getting banned: you had it coming.
alva 10y ago
Exactly. That behaviour shows you they can be split easily. Medium term infiltration into these groups is straightforward as the external signifiers of group membership are known and easy to emulate. Stimulate what appears to be a genuine disagreement and sides quickly form. As they are used to banning people quickly, the culture is strong and hard disagreement. If they can be turned on each other, it quickly collapses.

sugarpile 10y ago

Nah, that's amateur hour. They're easy to disrupt because if you throw out a piece of fake or mostly fake information that accedes to some viewpoint they hold holy they'll throw themselves into a rabid fury without much thought. For an example just look at the 0-60 leg humping of lyft they did last week because of that selectively true uber story. All that despite Icahn and Thiel each having 9 (?) figures invested in lyft. L to the ol.

Benjamin_Dobell 10y ago
Trolling? :P
scrollaway 10y ago
This is true for just about any superficial community, which reddit is full of. Clickbait driven logic.
breatheoften 10y ago
It is absolutely a biased perspective to pretend that left leaning communities are more likely to be "rabidly supportive" of fake news that conforms to their worldview than right leaning communities. Right leaning community discourse is almost entirely oblique references to trigger topics and meme images that use simplistic analogies to pattern match against the audiences worldview.
CM30 10y ago
Or for another example, look at this story and how the folks against GamerGate responded to it: https://medium.com/@mombot/zachattack-how-i-tricked-anti-harassment-advocates-into-doxing-me-4d9f055e2738#.gsld186qa https://medium.com/@mombot/zachattack-how-i-tricked-anti-har... All it took was a bit of fake evidence and a story these people wanted to believe (that someone they disliked 'wasn't a minority'), and suddenly you had a whole bunch of people looking like idiots and making fools of themselves. So easy to then ramp this up to focus on someone in the activist's/extremists' own community and hey, the whole group is now up in flames over a fabricated story.
- breatheoften 10y ago
  I'm not familiar with GamerGate. Can you explain this story? From reading the article I make some inferences and try to explain what I understood -- I explain below just to illustrate what I understand coming from a place of zero information on the topic -- please clarify and correct my understanding as presented. GamerGate is a movement of some kind (I actually have no idea what they support) that began deploying an attack called 'doxing' (which I understand involves publicly disclosing the identity behind social media personas in order that real life attacks/intimidation can be conducted against the actual humans) against people they are against. Anti-GamerGate is a movement with the agenda to 'dox the GamerGate doxxers'. The above article claims to be an account of how two individuals worked together to convince anti-GamerGaters to dox a fake identity and in the process uncovered the identity of the anti-GamerGaters and proceeded to 'dox' them with that information. What I'm failing to undestand is how exactly this proves anything about left-leaning groups in general? Is it your position that coordinated deployment of fake information can only be used against communities with certain philosophical properties commonly identified as 'liberal'? In your opinion what kind of information would be required to prove this perspective? Do you have evidence to support the idea that communities with a different philosophical leaning would not succumb to such a coordinated mis-information campaign?

CJefferson 10y ago

That means that get rid of unintelligent trolls -- the best trolls are the one who hang around and worm their ways into position of power, so they can do the banning.

justinlaster 10y ago

My experience has been people who claim they're banned from groups for espousing different opinions actually did so in the least constructive way possible. They weren't banned for the opinion, they were banned for their conduct. See: Reddit. With the notable exception of alt-right subs like /r/The_Donald -- who apparently have no issue with banning anyone they even _think_ is going against the hive mind.

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
That's true. People complain about being banned, and then it turns out that they called someone's mother a hamster. Not that there isn't some awful part of me thinks it's a little bit funny to tweet gay porn at the alt-right, but if you do something like that, than don't complain about getting banned: you had it coming.

alva 10y ago

Exactly. That behaviour shows you they can be split easily. Medium term infiltration into these groups is straightforward as the external signifiers of group membership are known and easy to emulate. Stimulate what appears to be a genuine disagreement and sides quickly form. As they are used to banning people quickly, the culture is strong and hard disagreement. If they can be turned on each other, it quickly collapses.