7 ms·

I hope I don't get downvoted too badly for this, but do we have any statistics on the number of people who actually commit illegal acts (direct specific threats

I hope I don't get downvoted too badly for this, but do we have any statistics on the number of people who actually commit illegal acts (direct specific threats or acts, stalking, etc.) as a percent of the people post vitriolic online comments? I suspect it's a very small proportion. That isn't to excuse anything, but I only have so big an emotional budget for outrage, and I prefer to prioritize my efforts to help people in keeping with real vs. perceived danger.

Afton 5y ago
You could posit that this woman is in no danger whatsoever and it would still meet my budget for outrage. I guess we have different budgets.
greenie_beans 5y ago
you should probably get off of slatestarcodex.com and maybe read some more personal essays like this. like how the hell would you even begin to quantify something like that? what do you compare it to? is somebody legitimately feeling unsafe not enough for this to be a problem?
neaden 5y ago
The thing is it only takes one person to kill you.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  That's true, but it only takes one shut-in to threaten to kill you on the internet to characterize every person who disagreed with you as an abuser. It's a common media tactic, apart from the fact that it's definitely horrible to be a woman or a minority on the internet. That's why we need pseudoanonymity.
  - mcphage 5y ago
    > That's why we need pseudoanonymity. What do you mean by pseudoanonymity? You can't hide the fact that you're a woman on the internet if you're writing about the experience of being a woman, for instance. And the author here got her share of anti-semitic and anti-trans hate, despite not actually being either of those things.
    - chucksta 5y ago
      What we currently have is pseudo anonymity. It is generally anonymous, but it's not truly because there is still some form of identifiable information which could be linked back. As for hiding the fact, you don't have to write in first person, you could write about a fictitious person, or could change identifiable information and disclose that. It clearly doesn't matter what you say, people will assign what they assume anyway, ie trans or jewish.
- giantg2 5y ago
  True, but the question is how likely it would be that the person is from that group, or from just walking down the street. Relative risk can help people prioritize their actions with constrained resources - tackle violence in their city, or tackle it by somehow targeting hate speech on the internet.
  - alex_c 5y ago
    The Internet Hate Machine is both targeted and somewhat randomized. Statistics don't help when you are the target. How would you begin to gather statistics and estimate risk for something like this, for example? When the video from the Proud Boys’ founder made its way into my Google alerts, I didn’t know who he was at first. I was so distracted by the strangeness of someone making a takedown video about me that I didn’t think to look into who was actually behind it. ... I took a closer look at the video. It had 24,000 views already. Some of the commenters were talking about the city I lived in. I was alone in my house, sitting in front of my computer, thinking, Oh no. Maybe this isn’t a funny story. Maybe this is a scary story.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      "How would you begin to gather statistics and estimate risk for something like this, for example?" The FBI tracks hate crimes. That could be a starting point. Various federal agencies provide protection and investigation of threats for political/judicial figures. It seems their analysis of what percentage are credible, and which ones are attempted, could provide good data. We also have to view the risk as seen by the other commenter. They might not be outraged about this due to them not being a target by not becoming notorious on the internet and engaging with hate groups. This is largely the same as someone in a city saying the city is safe, but never going to the bad area. Is it a problem - yes. Is it one that directly affects them - no. Is it something they will take action on - it depends on their other priorities.
  - mocheeze 5y ago
culi 5y ago
Just curious, in what ways do you prioritize your efforts to help people facing real danger? I'm particularly curious about how those efforts compete with showing sympathy to someone talking about their experience with this
- lr4444lr 5y ago
  Maybe I'm just too old school, but I was raised with "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me". Not, of course, that I don't want to help someone who's bullied by everyone at school, because being a social outcast with no friends is miserable, but you don't have to use Twitter, or associate your personal account with your professional work.
  - culi 5y ago
    Getting death threats and incels posting your personal address, the names of your family members, etc all over 4chan is a qualitatively different experience than being called a name. It kinda seems like you're just trying to place yourself above her despite never in your life having to face that experience. Not to mention that she makes a living online and has to have an online presence.
munk-a 5y ago
Emotional danger is quite real and people can carry the trauma of it through the rest of their lives. As per the plate story she related, whether that was thrown by a rando or someone out to get her can't be known, but what can be known is that she'll never be certain either way and feel the fear of recent emotional hate coupled with physical threats. Death threats and hate speech on the internet cause a serious amount of societal harm - extreme censorship also causes serious harm... I don't know what the answer is but I know that anyone who is absolutely fanatically devoted to either end of the spectrum to the point of "knowing they're right" is wrong.
burkaman 5y ago
This article is about several types of real danger, one of which is the vitriolic online comments themselves. It doesn't have to escalate to a crime to be a problem.
cycomanic 5y ago
So let me ask you would you be OK with be ok with someone close to you being subjected to a constant bullying/harassment campaign as long as they don't "really hurt" them? Second question: even if the statistics are that only 1 in whatever people actually is dangerous. If you get 100s of hate messages a day, how do you know that one of them isn't a physical threat. Because that is the intent create fear, torture can be pretty effective just through threats of violence.
- lr4444lr 5y ago
  Making a physical threat crosses a line, and those people need to be dealt with. As for dealing with the trolls making gas chamber jokes, I'd just stop reading Twitter. Or the Facebook/YouTube comments. Frankly, I don't think reading the yammerings of the unwashed masses on unpaid, unverified social media accounts is some kind of requirement for living a productive life, even when you make your bread through online content. Sorry if it sounds harsh, that's just what I think, and what I'd tell a loved one.
  - mocheeze 5y ago
    She did go to the police with the threats. They sent her away. Now what's the plan if authorities won't act? Wait for congress to hold hearings on one's behalf after the violence is done? Most police wouldn't be happy with their personal and loved ones' information being posted online with the purpose of making threats of violence or other harm.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
Last year we lost a pretty darned good emulator author, Near, because they, and their friends and family, were systematically harassed until they finally ended up taking their own life. Maybe you should reconsider the line between "real" and "perceived".

Afton 5y ago

You could posit that this woman is in no danger whatsoever and it would still meet my budget for outrage. I guess we have different budgets.

greenie_beans 5y ago

you should probably get off of slatestarcodex.com and maybe read some more personal essays like this. like how the hell would you even begin to quantify something like that? what do you compare it to? is somebody legitimately feeling unsafe not enough for this to be a problem?

neaden 5y ago

The thing is it only takes one person to kill you.

pessimizer 5y ago
That's true, but it only takes one shut-in to threaten to kill you on the internet to characterize every person who disagreed with you as an abuser. It's a common media tactic, apart from the fact that it's definitely horrible to be a woman or a minority on the internet. That's why we need pseudoanonymity.
- mcphage 5y ago
  > That's why we need pseudoanonymity. What do you mean by pseudoanonymity? You can't hide the fact that you're a woman on the internet if you're writing about the experience of being a woman, for instance. And the author here got her share of anti-semitic and anti-trans hate, despite not actually being either of those things.
  - chucksta 5y ago
    What we currently have is pseudo anonymity. It is generally anonymous, but it's not truly because there is still some form of identifiable information which could be linked back. As for hiding the fact, you don't have to write in first person, you could write about a fictitious person, or could change identifiable information and disclose that. It clearly doesn't matter what you say, people will assign what they assume anyway, ie trans or jewish.
giantg2 5y ago
True, but the question is how likely it would be that the person is from that group, or from just walking down the street. Relative risk can help people prioritize their actions with constrained resources - tackle violence in their city, or tackle it by somehow targeting hate speech on the internet.
- alex_c 5y ago
  The Internet Hate Machine is both targeted and somewhat randomized. Statistics don't help when you are the target. How would you begin to gather statistics and estimate risk for something like this, for example? When the video from the Proud Boys’ founder made its way into my Google alerts, I didn’t know who he was at first. I was so distracted by the strangeness of someone making a takedown video about me that I didn’t think to look into who was actually behind it. ... I took a closer look at the video. It had 24,000 views already. Some of the commenters were talking about the city I lived in. I was alone in my house, sitting in front of my computer, thinking, Oh no. Maybe this isn’t a funny story. Maybe this is a scary story.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    "How would you begin to gather statistics and estimate risk for something like this, for example?" The FBI tracks hate crimes. That could be a starting point. Various federal agencies provide protection and investigation of threats for political/judicial figures. It seems their analysis of what percentage are credible, and which ones are attempted, could provide good data. We also have to view the risk as seen by the other commenter. They might not be outraged about this due to them not being a target by not becoming notorious on the internet and engaging with hate groups. This is largely the same as someone in a city saying the city is safe, but never going to the bad area. Is it a problem - yes. Is it one that directly affects them - no. Is it something they will take action on - it depends on their other priorities.
- mocheeze 5y ago

culi 5y ago

Just curious, in what ways do you prioritize your efforts to help people facing real danger? I'm particularly curious about how those efforts compete with showing sympathy to someone talking about their experience with this

lr4444lr 5y ago
Maybe I'm just too old school, but I was raised with "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me". Not, of course, that I don't want to help someone who's bullied by everyone at school, because being a social outcast with no friends is miserable, but you don't have to use Twitter, or associate your personal account with your professional work.
- culi 5y ago
  Getting death threats and incels posting your personal address, the names of your family members, etc all over 4chan is a qualitatively different experience than being called a name. It kinda seems like you're just trying to place yourself above her despite never in your life having to face that experience. Not to mention that she makes a living online and has to have an online presence.

munk-a 5y ago

Emotional danger is quite real and people can carry the trauma of it through the rest of their lives. As per the plate story she related, whether that was thrown by a rando or someone out to get her can't be known, but what can be known is that she'll never be certain either way and feel the fear of recent emotional hate coupled with physical threats. Death threats and hate speech on the internet cause a serious amount of societal harm - extreme censorship also causes serious harm... I don't know what the answer is but I know that anyone who is absolutely fanatically devoted to either end of the spectrum to the point of "knowing they're right" is wrong.

burkaman 5y ago

This article is about several types of real danger, one of which is the vitriolic online comments themselves. It doesn't have to escalate to a crime to be a problem.

cycomanic 5y ago

So let me ask you would you be OK with be ok with someone close to you being subjected to a constant bullying/harassment campaign as long as they don't "really hurt" them? Second question: even if the statistics are that only 1 in whatever people actually is dangerous. If you get 100s of hate messages a day, how do you know that one of them isn't a physical threat. Because that is the intent create fear, torture can be pretty effective just through threats of violence.

lr4444lr 5y ago
Making a physical threat crosses a line, and those people need to be dealt with. As for dealing with the trolls making gas chamber jokes, I'd just stop reading Twitter. Or the Facebook/YouTube comments. Frankly, I don't think reading the yammerings of the unwashed masses on unpaid, unverified social media accounts is some kind of requirement for living a productive life, even when you make your bread through online content. Sorry if it sounds harsh, that's just what I think, and what I'd tell a loved one.
- mocheeze 5y ago
  She did go to the police with the threats. They sent her away. Now what's the plan if authorities won't act? Wait for congress to hold hearings on one's behalf after the violence is done? Most police wouldn't be happy with their personal and loved ones' information being posted online with the purpose of making threats of violence or other harm.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

Last year we lost a pretty darned good emulator author, Near, because they, and their friends and family, were systematically harassed until they finally ended up taking their own life. Maybe you should reconsider the line between "real" and "perceived".