4 ms·

Brand problem and anonymity mismatch. Plenty of people hate brands. Microsoft, Ford, Chevy, Walmart, Green Bay Packers. You try to turn yourself into a brand

by VLM 12y ago

Brand problem and anonymity mismatch. Plenty of people hate brands. Microsoft, Ford, Chevy, Walmart, Green Bay Packers. You try to turn yourself into a brand, you're going to pick up hate because you're a brand not because you're a person and hating brands is culturally seen as a great idea that should be emulated as much as possible. So trying to fix hatred toward humans is pretty much a waste of time when the root problem is hatred directed at brands. Even if they are "personal" brands. Or rephrased whatever is done to fix this (if anything) the blowback will eliminate brand hatred (umm, good luck with that BTW). No more hating some random female programmer or journalist means no more hating walmart or ISIS or the Jews or Obama (oh wait Obama is a dude not a brand, well, he is both, whatever). The other aspect is anonymity mismatch where semi-anonymous people are attacking very non-anonymous victims. The solution proposed over and over is less anonymity for attackers. Removal of identity from the victims would work just as well. This merges in with "personal brands" paragraph above. If supposedly you truly want to promote a message and not a brand, that brand being yourself of course, you'd do it for the cause and not the fame. Unless you really are promoting yourself as a brand using a message as a tool to gain fame, and unfortunately gains attacks. Combine the two concepts and a "famous" non-anonymous brand, which happens to be an individual, will get a heaping dose of trolling for deep seated cultural reasons related to what it means to be a brand and what it means to be famous (and not famous). Good luck fixing that by getting distracted by "brands are people too" and "be nice to people", its the wrong tactic to fix it. You're trying to install deck screws with a hammer.

scribu 12y ago
That's an interesting take on the matter. An internet where all online identities are decoupled from offline identities seems possible, at least in theory. The idea that using your real name online makes you act more responsibly doesn't seem to work anyway. But wait. That would only solve part of the problem - trolls targeting women, minorities etc. Even if you have a fictional online identity, once you have visibility and say something a troll doesn't agree with, they'll still come after you.
- VLM 12y ago
  I think your last paragraph misses the entire point of my post... No matter how many people hate General Motors, the spokesmodel of the latest TV commercial is not likely getting death threats. Its always the people who insist on making themselves the brands, that self-promote themselves as a brand, that attract the death threats and nut cases, just like any other "brand". If you can separate the brand and the person in a way even the trolls can understand, let them hate the anonymous brand all they want, what does it matter? Maybe a sports analogy helps? Everyone in the state of Wisconsin viciously hates the brand of the Chicago Bears and the journalists encourage it as much as possible. But no one sends death threats to Mr. XYZ who is a ticket collector at gate 3. One is a brand and hating brands is seen as a universal good (other than on social media, whoops). The other is just some dude making his way thru life, no problem. (edited to give you another example. Look how /b/ on 4chan behaves toward women on /b/. Not women in abstract or women in journalism, I'm talking about humans with two x chromosomes talking on /b/ itself which is about 99% male trolls (and lots of lurkers). Frankly, /b/ behaves pretty nicely and civil almost gentlemanly toward women actually on /b/ AS LONG AS she doesn't go all self promotional "gimmie attention look here I am a girlie on /b/ everyone look at me because you're mostly guys and I are a girl so you must worship me its all about me me me me" and then they turn on her like starving wolves beginning with "show us (you can guess) or GTFO" and it generally kinda devolves from there, in fact it gets quite a bit worse, and very quickly. They now hate her because she is now a brand and not a person. Find me a trollier place on the internet than /b/ (good luck) and I bet they behave the same way, people treat people like people, and some people treat some brands like dirt, worse than dirt, worse than you can imagine dirt being treated, and if the brand happens to be an intensely self promotional person instead of an abstract entity or corporation or idea or whatever then things are really going to suck for that brand-which-happens-to-be-a-real-woman. Or TLDR if you want to be treated like a person on 4chan on /b/, its really easy no matter who or what you are, just behave like a person, not a brand or a PR rep or marketdroid. The internet is very nice to people, and occasionally utterly shockingly brutal to brands. Go choose your destiny...)
  - scribu 12y ago
    Ok, so your argument seems to be that if you hide behind an impersonal brand, you'll be safe. Sorry, but I'm not conviced: > No matter how many people hate General Motors, the spokesmodel of the latest TV commercial is not likely getting death threats. The spokesmodel probably doesn't get death threats, but what about the president or the CEO of GM? > Everyone in the state of Wisconsin viciously hates the brand of the Chicago Bears and the journalists encourage it as much as possible. But no one sends death threats to Mr. XYZ who is a ticket collector at gate 3. Of course not, but are you sure nobody sends death threats to the manager of the team or the coach? > One is a brand and hating brands is seen as a universal good That's a bit hiperbolic. I don't consider Google bashing or Apple bashing, for example, to be a net good. IMO, it's just a tribal instinct that we haven't managed to get rid of yet.

by VLM 12y ago

scribu 12y ago

That's an interesting take on the matter. An internet where all online identities are decoupled from offline identities seems possible, at least in theory. The idea that using your real name online makes you act more responsibly doesn't seem to work anyway. But wait. That would only solve part of the problem - trolls targeting women, minorities etc. Even if you have a fictional online identity, once you have visibility and say something a troll doesn't agree with, they'll still come after you.

VLM 12y ago
I think your last paragraph misses the entire point of my post... No matter how many people hate General Motors, the spokesmodel of the latest TV commercial is not likely getting death threats. Its always the people who insist on making themselves the brands, that self-promote themselves as a brand, that attract the death threats and nut cases, just like any other "brand". If you can separate the brand and the person in a way even the trolls can understand, let them hate the anonymous brand all they want, what does it matter? Maybe a sports analogy helps? Everyone in the state of Wisconsin viciously hates the brand of the Chicago Bears and the journalists encourage it as much as possible. But no one sends death threats to Mr. XYZ who is a ticket collector at gate 3. One is a brand and hating brands is seen as a universal good (other than on social media, whoops). The other is just some dude making his way thru life, no problem. (edited to give you another example. Look how /b/ on 4chan behaves toward women on /b/. Not women in abstract or women in journalism, I'm talking about humans with two x chromosomes talking on /b/ itself which is about 99% male trolls (and lots of lurkers). Frankly, /b/ behaves pretty nicely and civil almost gentlemanly toward women actually on /b/ AS LONG AS she doesn't go all self promotional "gimmie attention look here I am a girlie on /b/ everyone look at me because you're mostly guys and I are a girl so you must worship me its all about me me me me" and then they turn on her like starving wolves beginning with "show us (you can guess) or GTFO" and it generally kinda devolves from there, in fact it gets quite a bit worse, and very quickly. They now hate her because she is now a brand and not a person. Find me a trollier place on the internet than /b/ (good luck) and I bet they behave the same way, people treat people like people, and some people treat some brands like dirt, worse than dirt, worse than you can imagine dirt being treated, and if the brand happens to be an intensely self promotional person instead of an abstract entity or corporation or idea or whatever then things are really going to suck for that brand-which-happens-to-be-a-real-woman. Or TLDR if you want to be treated like a person on 4chan on /b/, its really easy no matter who or what you are, just behave like a person, not a brand or a PR rep or marketdroid. The internet is very nice to people, and occasionally utterly shockingly brutal to brands. Go choose your destiny...)
- scribu 12y ago
  Ok, so your argument seems to be that if you hide behind an impersonal brand, you'll be safe. Sorry, but I'm not conviced: > No matter how many people hate General Motors, the spokesmodel of the latest TV commercial is not likely getting death threats. The spokesmodel probably doesn't get death threats, but what about the president or the CEO of GM? > Everyone in the state of Wisconsin viciously hates the brand of the Chicago Bears and the journalists encourage it as much as possible. But no one sends death threats to Mr. XYZ who is a ticket collector at gate 3. Of course not, but are you sure nobody sends death threats to the manager of the team or the coach? > One is a brand and hating brands is seen as a universal good That's a bit hiperbolic. I don't consider Google bashing or Apple bashing, for example, to be a net good. IMO, it's just a tribal instinct that we haven't managed to get rid of yet.