8 ms·
I'm going to disagree. I've been in IRC, Forums, Newsgroups, lurked 4Chan, Reddit, and Slashdot for years. It has actually been evolving to a point, especially
by partiallypro 11y ago
I'm going to disagree. I've been in IRC, Forums, Newsgroups, lurked 4Chan, Reddit, and Slashdot for years. It has actually been evolving to a point, especially among the younger crowd to get bent out of shape about essentially nothing. Maybe that is because more of our lives are online than before, but if you were to go through Twitter and Tumblr and just browse around it is a huge mess of people constantly being offended and wanting an apology. I'm not defending the Redditors that legitimately harassed Ellen Pao.
However, modern media (like Gawker, Vox, Salon, Slate, etc) can somehow turn 3 tweets from anonymous people with no followers into a national shit storm. These media outlets feed the trolls, because it gets them clicks. So, it is of my opinion that the "trolls" aren't "winning" the battle, they just haven't left, and never will. The news outlets are click junkies and know they can foment faux rage by enticing people who otherwise we would have just ignored 10+ years ago. Of course they look large in numbers if you're putting them under the microscope. The thing people who have little online experience miss is that they are making things worse by giving people attention and trying to "silence" them.
- fixermark 11y agoDoes "Just don't feed the trolls" continue to work in a world where trolls know that SWATting someone is as easy as picking up a phone, and doxxing someone can have significant long-term consequences?
- msandford 11y agoShould we repeal the first amendment because people sometimes used racial or ethnic slurs? Or they deny the moon landing? Or say things that your preferred political party happens to disagree with? Or maybe only things that YOU disagree with?
- fixermark 11y agoNobody is recommending a repeal of the First Amendment. At best, the conversation is about whether orgs like Reddit have any obligation (moral, business, or otherwise) to allow people screaming racial or ethnic slurs to stand on (metaphorically speaking) their property and use their megaphones. Usenet still exists, and nobody is stopping people from using it. It's just not where trolls go to be heard anymore, because nobody is there to hear them. ;)
- pdeuchler 11y ago"Nobody wants to take away your right to free speech, we're just trying to create social norms that discourage, or hinder, the freedom to express views we don't like. Ignore the fact that social norms inevitably become codified in law."
- babygoat 11y agoReddit does not owe you free speech. You can say whatever you want, and they can choose not to broadcast it to millions of people.
- yellowapple 11y agoThat's a non-sequitur to the claim that social norms (of the variety that Reddit is attempting to establish) tend to become codified into law, for better or worse. Of course, that's a non-sequitur to the claim that Reddit is an entity that has no obligation to be a platform for entirely-uncensored expression, though even that is a cop-out argument against those who cite Reddit as having a reputation of free expression. Basically, this whole discussion is gibberish.
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoOr does it? Now, no company would owe you freedom of speech just for existing, but in the previous promises Reddit made, it did promise to be a bastion of free speech. It wasn't an explicit contract that they can be taken to court over, but do we really want to say that, unless there is an explicit contract, there cannot be any agreements?
- DanBC 11y agoCan't they change their mind?
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoCan you change your mind on a verbal agreement? That a court is likely to not find sufficient evidence to enforce it doesn't make changing you mind about it right/ethical once you've gained benefit from the agreement. If I get the community to help me build a orphanage, it is wrong for me to decide I rather do something else with the building once built.
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoBetter example would be anti-vaxxers. You can point to actual cases of dead children and say this is the penalty of free speech. Speaking of which, why is anti-vaxxer rhetoric protected even though it contributes to the harm of children. I can think of illegal speech that was banned because of it being harmful to children (and which is likely less lethal than anti-vaxxer rhetoric).
- msandford 11y ago> I can think of illegal speech that was banned because of it being harmful to children (and which is likely less lethal than anti-vaxxer rhetoric). That's very interesting. Could you elaborate please? I'd really like to know more.
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoImages/videos are considered speech. There was actually a few different First Amendment cases concerning different images/videos being made illegal, but of those only one ban clearly stuck (a second ban was struck down but reinstated with slightly different laws and is still waiting a second SCOTUS ruling on it). (As a side note to any lawyers, is text protected speech when it originates as a description of an actual harmful act of which video/images would not be legal speech? I don't think it was made illegal, but I wonder if it could be (at least if it were at some level of detail).)
- msandford 11y agoAh, okay that makes a lot more sense then. Thanks for sharing!
- angersock 11y agoIf the autoimmune disease of our society is so fucked up that SWATing is a viable tactic, things need to be fixed. If these media outlets spent half as much effort addressing that sort of shortcoming, maybe things would be better. Instead, they use their power for clickbait, and that means that the few times they do cover it they're dismissed as just another one of those "This unemployed veteran consumed bath salts--you'll never guess what happened next" or "1 easy tip for getting out of criminal charges--the ACLU hates this (white) guy".
- theseatoms 11y agoThe magnitude of those long-term consequences will have to diminish over time, as incidences increase in frequency. i.e. social progress
- lcswi 11y agoHave there been instances where this happened out of the blue? If so, I would appreciate some more information on those incedents.
- tyrust 11y agoA recent example of SWATting - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140828/13313928352/counter-strike-players-twitch-stream-captures-his-own-swatting-some-questionable-police-behavior.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140828/13313928352/count... It does happen. That said, I don't know if I agree with the comment you have replied to.
- danielweber 11y agoUnfortunately most humans -- and this includes the humans posting on this thread, including me -- suffer from tribalism, and "it's okay when my side does it" overrides all the other rules. Fixing this is really hard and requires constant application of lots of energy.
- digi_owl 11y agoIt is less "its ok because it is my tribe" and more "i will not risk my standing within the tribe by speaking up against this".
- striking 11y agoIt's better than feeding them. One step at a time; stop feeding the trolls, then fix SWATing and online harassment. Step one of "How to Deal with Bullies": Show minimal reaction. [1] 1: http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-With-Bullies http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-With-Bullies
- digi_owl 11y agoSwating seems to me to go beyond trolling. They are effectively abusing public resources with potentially fatal outcomes.
- partiallypro 11y agoSWATing is bad, but rare, and imo it speak more volumes for the really low threshold police have for using a SWAT team for things. That can be addressed in other ways. SWAT teams raid the wrong houses all the time. If someone SWATs someone they should be thrown in jail, imo, but it also, again speak volumes to the mentality of modern police departments who will SWAT someone based on nothing but a phone call.
- nobodyman 11y agoI would argue the easily-exploitable 911 infrastructure is the larger problem. Concerns about police militarization aside, I don't fault their low threshold for response. If I report a violent crime in progress I don't want the 911 operator saying "That's a pretty bold claim, sir. Is there anyone else I could speak to?".
- istvan__ 11y agoThis is exactly right. Reasoning ends when the feelings start. I am not even sure if I understand -btw. usually attributed to religious people- the concept of getting offended. If somebody says something you don't like and you don't want to hear just walk away, close the tab, delete the email.
- babygoat 11y agoWhat is the point of interacting with other people if you don't feel anything?
- istvan__ 11y agoGaining knowledge for example. What is the point of interacting with others if you continuously offended?
- babygoat 11y agoDo you think you could gain knowledge without using slurs and ad hominems? The only reason to do that is to provoke and hurt feelings.
- istvan__ 11y agoCould I or could anybody? Funny you mention ad hominem and targeting the question to me, implying that I use slurs and ad hominems. :) I seriously don't care if somebody is smart and I have something to learn I will regardless of her style, slurs or whatever. I learned that in primary school where I was exposed to underpaid teachers who hated everybody who was smart. :)
- Shorel 11y agoYou can work. You can learn. You can wonder. You can teach. You can discover. And you don't need to be immersed in feelings or controlled by them in order to achieve that. Feeling is not the end of all and it's not superior to everything else, it's just another side of being human.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Shorel 11y agoIn that case, it can be said that the difference now is that the news media have joined the trolls. And they do it because it benefits them. Feeding the troll in this case gives the trolls paychecks and influence, making the future even more trollish.
- api 11y ago"If it bleeds it leads" -> "if it trolls it rolls?"
- digi_owl 11y agoYep, media in their click/eyeball baiting frenzy has become megaphones for the extreme margins. Thus turning molehills into mountain ranges.