6 ms·

Freedom of speech. The one jerk of a teacher I had, made me realize this. It is better they are out in the open, that they are confronted publicly. Those stand

by McDoku 12y ago

Freedom of speech. The one jerk of a teacher I had, made me realize this. It is better they are out in the open, that they are confronted publicly. Those standing to be counted are not the dangerous ones.... it is the 10 more who agree silently. If it is driven to silence it does not disappear but is spoken in whispers. It is better that they are challenged in the open.

waterlesscloud 12y ago
And I think that's at the heart of why there isn't a technical or legal solution to these issues. Whatever solution will be found will be a social one, that's the only way to actually change what people feel and think and believe. And if they feel and think and believe it, they'll act on it in one way or another, no matter how you try to prevent it.
- McDoku 12y ago
  Hearts and minds
- cmdkeen 12y ago
  There is a commercial one. Twitter doesn't have to allow them to carry on in this fashion, and it is a massive enabler of trolls. It's attitude towards online abuse is shockingly neglectful. Trolls will always act, but that doesn't mean we have to put up with letting them use the some of the most powerful communications mediums of all time to do so. Twitter has a massive pulpit to make statements that influence social change. Deleting the weev account won't stop him, but would make a very powerful pronouncement about what the company views as unacceptable behaviour, would diminish his "credibility" and change the narrative.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    That doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it to other venues.
    - cmdkeen 12y ago
      It's much harder to use Reddit to issue a death threat to someone when they don't use Reddit. Twitter especially is a tool for magnifying hate in a way that other venues just aren't. The article specifically mentions instances of weev's tweets appearing in her timeline due to retweets, Twitter suggesting she follow him.
      - McDoku 12y ago
        Status is attention. If enough people stare at a fool he will be convinced he is king. There are dollars in spectacle but in the end twitter, fb, reddit or HN are inferior tools because of this.
    - arrrg 12y ago
      If by not solve the problem you mean not completely eliminate, then yeah. Of course. Obviously. What’s with all this binary thinking? It’s completely non-sensical and irrelevant. Twitter is an important tool for communication for many people, so if harassing people gets harder there it makes it easier for those people, even if the harassers move elsewhere. In other places they do get less direct access, so their impact is diminished, even if they put in just as much work.
      - waterlesscloud 12y ago
        Sure, of course the harassers can't attack people directly on Twitter if they're banned from Twitter. But what the article is talking about is also doxxing, sending things to physical addresses, etc, which are by far the more distressing elements of harassing. Kicking people off Twitter does nothing to stop or even slow those things down. It's not "binary thinking", so please don't try to dismiss it as such. It's acknowledging that the simple answers don't solve the worst aspects of the problem.
        arrrg 12y ago
        It is binary thinking, though. A is not completely effective, so it’s completely worthless. That’s bullshit. Obviously, for this there is no technical solution. But Twitter (and reddit) currently do a really, really shitty job and they have to do so, so much better. They make it worse. The lasting solution is for everyone to shun harassers (if anyone you know does it, approach them, tell them to stop in no uncertain terms, always) and to shun enablers (those who downplay or minimise the effects). That’s really obvious, too, but obviously also a hard problem to solve.
deciplex 12y ago
What if I told you that around 35% of the population is just terrible, and another 50% is too busy to do anything about it? Would that change your mind? I'm not claiming these are the numbers, just pointing out that there are numbers, and I'm wondering where you would draw the line, if you would draw it at all. That is, giving these people a forum where they can freely associate, normalize their behavior, and find sympathetic friends, might make them a greater threat that if we just did everything we could to marginalize these assholes and atomize their communities/roach dens wherever and whenever we found them. I really do emphasize the might here - I don't have an answer. But, I do think it's something that needs to be given serious thought, rather than reverting the default 'freedom of speech must be preserved' position so tempting to the typical liberal.
- verroq 12y ago
  What if I told you I'm a fascist dictatorship and I and I alone uphold the moral authority? Maybe we should find these people and exterminate them, for the good of everyone.
  - McDoku 12y ago
    A bit bold, but it does highlight that insidious tension that leads good people to doom.
- McDoku 12y ago
  Freedom of speech mean that these ideas can be challenged in the public sphere. Anything else is the department of arm chair theorist. Freedom ain't free. It calls for noble labour.
  - deciplex 12y ago
    Perhaps. I don't think people are as noble or reasonable or responsible as you obviously do. I'm envious of this somewhat :-) My gut feeling is that most of the '50% busy' people I reference above do not identity strongly with the assholes in their community, but neither are they going to go out of their way to do much about it, and that includes listening to anything the other side has to say. They're going to usually conclude the truth lies somewhere in the middle and then move on to the other shit that occupies their time. It seems to me that, over time, a totally unmoderated and free community devolves into chaos and bigotry - look to television or talk radio after the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine for a solid example.

by McDoku 12y ago

waterlesscloud 12y ago

And I think that's at the heart of why there isn't a technical or legal solution to these issues. Whatever solution will be found will be a social one, that's the only way to actually change what people feel and think and believe. And if they feel and think and believe it, they'll act on it in one way or another, no matter how you try to prevent it.

McDoku 12y ago
Hearts and minds
cmdkeen 12y ago
There is a commercial one. Twitter doesn't have to allow them to carry on in this fashion, and it is a massive enabler of trolls. It's attitude towards online abuse is shockingly neglectful. Trolls will always act, but that doesn't mean we have to put up with letting them use the some of the most powerful communications mediums of all time to do so. Twitter has a massive pulpit to make statements that influence social change. Deleting the weev account won't stop him, but would make a very powerful pronouncement about what the company views as unacceptable behaviour, would diminish his "credibility" and change the narrative.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  That doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it to other venues.
  - cmdkeen 12y ago
    It's much harder to use Reddit to issue a death threat to someone when they don't use Reddit. Twitter especially is a tool for magnifying hate in a way that other venues just aren't. The article specifically mentions instances of weev's tweets appearing in her timeline due to retweets, Twitter suggesting she follow him.
    - McDoku 12y ago
      Status is attention. If enough people stare at a fool he will be convinced he is king. There are dollars in spectacle but in the end twitter, fb, reddit or HN are inferior tools because of this.
  - arrrg 12y ago
    If by not solve the problem you mean not completely eliminate, then yeah. Of course. Obviously. What’s with all this binary thinking? It’s completely non-sensical and irrelevant. Twitter is an important tool for communication for many people, so if harassing people gets harder there it makes it easier for those people, even if the harassers move elsewhere. In other places they do get less direct access, so their impact is diminished, even if they put in just as much work.
    - waterlesscloud 12y ago
      Sure, of course the harassers can't attack people directly on Twitter if they're banned from Twitter. But what the article is talking about is also doxxing, sending things to physical addresses, etc, which are by far the more distressing elements of harassing. Kicking people off Twitter does nothing to stop or even slow those things down. It's not "binary thinking", so please don't try to dismiss it as such. It's acknowledging that the simple answers don't solve the worst aspects of the problem.
      - arrrg 12y ago
        It is binary thinking, though. A is not completely effective, so it’s completely worthless. That’s bullshit. Obviously, for this there is no technical solution. But Twitter (and reddit) currently do a really, really shitty job and they have to do so, so much better. They make it worse. The lasting solution is for everyone to shun harassers (if anyone you know does it, approach them, tell them to stop in no uncertain terms, always) and to shun enablers (those who downplay or minimise the effects). That’s really obvious, too, but obviously also a hard problem to solve.

deciplex 12y ago

What if I told you that around 35% of the population is just terrible, and another 50% is too busy to do anything about it? Would that change your mind? I'm not claiming these are the numbers, just pointing out that there are numbers, and I'm wondering where you would draw the line, if you would draw it at all. That is, giving these people a forum where they can freely associate, normalize their behavior, and find sympathetic friends, might make them a greater threat that if we just did everything we could to marginalize these assholes and atomize their communities/roach dens wherever and whenever we found them. I really do emphasize the might here - I don't have an answer. But, I do think it's something that needs to be given serious thought, rather than reverting the default 'freedom of speech must be preserved' position so tempting to the typical liberal.

verroq 12y ago
What if I told you I'm a fascist dictatorship and I and I alone uphold the moral authority? Maybe we should find these people and exterminate them, for the good of everyone.
- McDoku 12y ago
  A bit bold, but it does highlight that insidious tension that leads good people to doom.
McDoku 12y ago
Freedom of speech mean that these ideas can be challenged in the public sphere. Anything else is the department of arm chair theorist. Freedom ain't free. It calls for noble labour.
- deciplex 12y ago
  Perhaps. I don't think people are as noble or reasonable or responsible as you obviously do. I'm envious of this somewhat :-) My gut feeling is that most of the '50% busy' people I reference above do not identity strongly with the assholes in their community, but neither are they going to go out of their way to do much about it, and that includes listening to anything the other side has to say. They're going to usually conclude the truth lies somewhere in the middle and then move on to the other shit that occupies their time. It seems to me that, over time, a totally unmoderated and free community devolves into chaos and bigotry - look to television or talk radio after the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine for a solid example.