2 ms·

> I'm strongly against authoritarian overreach and used to consider trolling a "fact of life", nothing requiring intervention. I no longer believe that. We're t

> I'm strongly against authoritarian overreach and used to consider trolling a "fact of life", nothing requiring intervention. I no longer believe that. We're talking about a disappointing audio track for a stupid game yet the man and his family have to fear for their lives. This is hardly the first incident like this and not even close to the worst. Remember when Reddit decided they knew who the Boston Marathon bomber was, and got his friends and family harassed so bad that the FBI had to go on TV and give away sensitive case information just so they'd see how wrong they were and knock it off? Or maybe how Near was harassed for being a harmless non-binary furry until they committed suicide? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Mick's been through some shit, but if it took you this long to realize that maybe the "trolls" of today aren't the cuddly affectionate clowns of the previous millennium then you really weren't paying attention.

fleddr 4y ago
Well, AnIdiotOnTheNet, perhaps you could be more of a role model yourself by not making baseless assumptions. I've been on the web since 1996 and am well aware of what people can do. Depravity I couldn't even imagine exists. So no, I didn't just learn that people do really bad stuff. The reason I used the term "a fact of life" is because addressing this issue can come at an enormous cost to society. Nobody would want anonymity to be illegal or to have every word expressed monitored by some institute. That's the reason for my hesitation, not because I didn't know about several earlier examples of this type of harassment. I find this specific example of a hate campaign very useful for it is pure. You can't say it was an accident (we had the wrong guy) nor is it clouded by politics: it's fine if it happens to my political opponents or it was in retaliation to them doing the same thing to our side. There's no provocation of any kind either. The above bullshit excuses are often used to be relatively lax about this phenomenon. To look away, and to see them as rare incidents. Whilst there's never an excuse, this one doesn't even have a bullshit excuse either. For me that's a tipping point in believing that legislation is needed.
- pas 4y ago
  there is a difference between mindlessly trolling a group/community (spamming, DoS and DDoS, flashmobs, 14 year olds standing across some building on the street and looking "menacing", etc) and harassing and threatening one or more specific people (voice messages, stalking, doxing). we already have legislation about the latter, it's simply not enforced. and there are no real conventions about what sites should do when a) one of their members is a target from the outside, b) harassers use their site as an accessory (eg. to communicate, organize, store photos/videos, advertise, recruit) and obviously it's not a clear-cut issue. mandating sites to somehow filter out harmful messages is not trivial. at the same time it'd be great to provide a few independent clearinghouses for these, it'd be great if users could opt-in to have content aimed at them filtered, etc. (for example it'd be very useful for sites to have a setting for users to only allow receiving private messages from users with some minimal reputation, and so on)

fleddr 4y ago

Well, AnIdiotOnTheNet, perhaps you could be more of a role model yourself by not making baseless assumptions. I've been on the web since 1996 and am well aware of what people can do. Depravity I couldn't even imagine exists. So no, I didn't just learn that people do really bad stuff. The reason I used the term "a fact of life" is because addressing this issue can come at an enormous cost to society. Nobody would want anonymity to be illegal or to have every word expressed monitored by some institute. That's the reason for my hesitation, not because I didn't know about several earlier examples of this type of harassment. I find this specific example of a hate campaign very useful for it is pure. You can't say it was an accident (we had the wrong guy) nor is it clouded by politics: it's fine if it happens to my political opponents or it was in retaliation to them doing the same thing to our side. There's no provocation of any kind either. The above bullshit excuses are often used to be relatively lax about this phenomenon. To look away, and to see them as rare incidents. Whilst there's never an excuse, this one doesn't even have a bullshit excuse either. For me that's a tipping point in believing that legislation is needed.

pas 4y ago
there is a difference between mindlessly trolling a group/community (spamming, DoS and DDoS, flashmobs, 14 year olds standing across some building on the street and looking "menacing", etc) and harassing and threatening one or more specific people (voice messages, stalking, doxing). we already have legislation about the latter, it's simply not enforced. and there are no real conventions about what sites should do when a) one of their members is a target from the outside, b) harassers use their site as an accessory (eg. to communicate, organize, store photos/videos, advertise, recruit) and obviously it's not a clear-cut issue. mandating sites to somehow filter out harmful messages is not trivial. at the same time it'd be great to provide a few independent clearinghouses for these, it'd be great if users could opt-in to have content aimed at them filtered, etc. (for example it'd be very useful for sites to have a setting for users to only allow receiving private messages from users with some minimal reputation, and so on)