4 ms·

It really frustrates me that this level of abuse is just accepted as a fact of nature. It feels like watching masked bandits stick up a bank then walk away cas

It really frustrates me that this level of abuse is just accepted as a fact of nature. It feels like watching masked bandits stick up a bank then walk away casually to the next bank down the street while the bank manager says "Drat! Too bad we didn't stop that one at the door. Oh well, at least they only got one register" I know all the responses to this are going to be "mUh PoLicE sTaTe" but I really wish there was some system of accountability for breach of trust online.

raxxorrax 5y ago
I don't. The advantages are overwhelming, people just forgot to appreciate it that there isn't some form of central information control. We see a lot of moral panics and authoritarian ambitions right now and the bad accessibility to information control is a huge blessing. If we had more responsibility here, it might look different, but that isn't really the case and probably unrealistic. For politics, clout or attention some people would love to get rid of some others people, often just because of disagreement. It is good that they cannot. We see companies firing people because they aren't a good look. Gladly that doesn't work with internet users. If I get abuse online, defense is in most cases very trivial. Given, that is a bit different for public personas. This is behavior not restricted to online content and why prominent people often have to employ PR. But that isn't a reason to worsen the net as a whole for everyone. If I only want to consume curated content, there are countless venues to do that. Sadly and curiously, people show up in places where content isn't moderated and start to complain.
- shuntress 5y ago
  I believe you have misinterpreted (understandably, perhaps, given my comment's wording) what I meant by "abuse". I meant "abuse" as in deliberate hostile misuse. Things like XSS, penetration scans, bruteforcing logins, phishing messages, etc. Constant penetration/vulnerability scans are baseline background noise of the internet. The best-case-scenario is that the scans find no vulnerability. The point I was trying to make is that I would prefer a world where existing online as something other than data-livestock felt a little safer.

raxxorrax 5y ago

I don't. The advantages are overwhelming, people just forgot to appreciate it that there isn't some form of central information control. We see a lot of moral panics and authoritarian ambitions right now and the bad accessibility to information control is a huge blessing. If we had more responsibility here, it might look different, but that isn't really the case and probably unrealistic. For politics, clout or attention some people would love to get rid of some others people, often just because of disagreement. It is good that they cannot. We see companies firing people because they aren't a good look. Gladly that doesn't work with internet users. If I get abuse online, defense is in most cases very trivial. Given, that is a bit different for public personas. This is behavior not restricted to online content and why prominent people often have to employ PR. But that isn't a reason to worsen the net as a whole for everyone. If I only want to consume curated content, there are countless venues to do that. Sadly and curiously, people show up in places where content isn't moderated and start to complain.

shuntress 5y ago
I believe you have misinterpreted (understandably, perhaps, given my comment's wording) what I meant by "abuse". I meant "abuse" as in deliberate hostile misuse. Things like XSS, penetration scans, bruteforcing logins, phishing messages, etc. Constant penetration/vulnerability scans are baseline background noise of the internet. The best-case-scenario is that the scans find no vulnerability. The point I was trying to make is that I would prefer a world where existing online as something other than data-livestock felt a little safer.