Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trouble at the Koolaid Point

seriouspony.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 285 posts

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#11

Post by rjknight »

jMyles wrote: post #4

I don't want to downplay the significance of this writing - thank you for calling it out! I do want to gently call into question the danger of the attack surfaces that you have (I think accurately) spelled out: 1) "Doxxing with calls to action (that — and trust me on this — people DO act on)." For the most part, high-profile "targets" from the troll's perspective are already known to the public anyway. Those that are…

> For the most part, high-profile "targets" from the troll's perspective are already known to the public anyway.

According to Dunbar's number, the average human can maintain meaningful social relations with around 150 people. If you have more than 150 followers on Twitter, you therefore must have followers who are not known to you personally, viz. "the public". That makes most of us "known to the public" in some way.

Calls to action matter. History has plenty of examples of situations in which somebody manages to provoke a group of people into attacking some individual by selectively or misleadingly disclosing information about that person, even if that information is untrue or nonsensical. My favourite example is the case of a mob attacking the home of a British paediatrician after someone confused the word "paediatrician" with "paedophile"[1] (yes, this actually happened).

This could happen to anyone, and the information being released doesn't even need to be true. Are you sure you've never done anything publicly that couldn't be twisted against you by a sufficiently malevolent person? And if you haven't, what would stop them from just making something up?

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.so...

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#12

Post by waterlesscloud »

McDoku wrote: post #7
jmduke wrote: post #3

This is an excellent, brave thing to write and I originally had a long comment highlighting a bunch of particularly poignant paragraphs that I deleted because really you should just read the entire thing. Neither I nor the vast majority of the people I know have ever been subject to online harassment and it makes me thankful that there are incredible people like Kathy out there. Lord knows I wouldn't have the courage…

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.

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.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#13

Post by pmjordan »

jMyles wrote: post #4

I don't want to downplay the significance of this writing - thank you for calling it out! I do want to gently call into question the danger of the attack surfaces that you have (I think accurately) spelled out: 1) "Doxxing with calls to action (that — and trust me on this — people DO act on)." For the most part, high-profile "targets" from the troll's perspective are already known to the public anyway. Those that are…

Ugh. At the very least, this kind of victim blaming attitude and lack of empathy is presumably exactly the setup for people jumping on the harassment bandwagon without thinking things through.

1. You're pretty much advocating mob rule. Also, are you seriously comparing the threat that internet hate-mongers vs. the NSA poses to the average Joe or Jane with an internet persona? I dislike corporate and government spying as much as the next person, but what immediate threat does the NSA pose to Kathy?

2. It's not hard to dream up a scenario (any immediate severe danger to one or more members of the public?) which, once the police starts believing the "witnesses", would make it irresponsible for them not to act on it. You just need enough "witnesses". From what I gather, the attitudes of some police forces, particularly in the US, could certainly do with adjusting, but that's an entirely separate problem.

3. Yes, as I'm sure you'll remember from the OP, once someone gets beaten up or worse, the authorities will take an interest. Not before that. You can't run around in real life constantly threatening people with violence, what makes it OK to do so via electronic media?

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#15

Post by deciplex »

McDoku wrote: post #7
jmduke wrote: post #3

This is an excellent, brave thing to write and I originally had a long comment highlighting a bunch of particularly poignant paragraphs that I deleted because really you should just read the entire thing. Neither I nor the vast majority of the people I know have ever been subject to online harassment and it makes me thankful that there are incredible people like Kathy out there. Lord knows I wouldn't have the courage…

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.

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.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#16

Post by valas »

jMyles wrote: post #4

I don't want to downplay the significance of this writing - thank you for calling it out! I do want to gently call into question the danger of the attack surfaces that you have (I think accurately) spelled out: 1) "Doxxing with calls to action (that — and trust me on this — people DO act on)." For the most part, high-profile "targets" from the troll's perspective are already known to the public anyway. Those that are…

Good points, but they don't help much if you're active victim of trolling. E.g. try to sleep at night if they doxxed your children :-(

Technology affects culture (and vice-a-versa). Trolling is/was rampant in blogosphere and Twitter, but I have impression that Facebook and Google+, who both enforce much hated real-names policies, have less of a trolling component.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#17

Post by verroq »

deciplex wrote: post #15
McDoku wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 sy…

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.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#18

Post by Pitarou »

jMyles wrote: post #4

I don't want to downplay the significance of this writing - thank you for calling it out! I do want to gently call into question the danger of the attack surfaces that you have (I think accurately) spelled out: 1) "Doxxing with calls to action (that — and trust me on this — people DO act on)." For the most part, high-profile "targets" from the troll's perspective are already known to the public anyway. Those that are…

I don't know what the solution to the troll problem is, but I don't think anti-epilepsy filters are a part of it, any more than I think bulletproof vests are a solution to gun violence.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#19

Post by rjknight »

pmjordan wrote: post #13
jMyles wrote: post #4

I don't want to downplay the significance of this writing - thank you for calling it out! I do want to gently call into question the danger of the attack surfaces that you have (I think accurately) spelled out: 1) "Doxxing with calls to action (that — and trust me on this — people DO act on)." For the most part, high-profile "targets" from the troll's perspective are already known to the public anyway. Those that are…

Ugh. At the very least, this kind of victim blaming attitude and lack of empathy is presumably exactly the setup for people jumping on the harassment bandwagon without thinking things through. 1. You're pretty much advocating mob rule. Also, are you seriously comparing the threat that internet hate-mongers vs. the NSA poses to the average Joe or Jane with an internet persona? I dislike corporate and government spying…

I didn't see any victim-blaming in that post - the victim is obviously due our full sympathy in each and every case. The question is what to do about it. The OP suggests that we might be able to form better communities, suggesting that the existence of communities in which this kind of thing does not happen proves that it must be possible. The GP appears to disagree, believing that we need technical and legal solutions to the problem instead. That's something about which reasonable people can disagree.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#20

Post by serf »

jmduke wrote: post #8
verroq wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>willingly allows to exist subreddits devoted towards domestic abuse and snuff Serious question: why does this even bother you?

That's a completely valid question, and the answer isn't something concrete. I think on one hand it's just overall indicative of the site's priorities (and again, I completely acknowledge that it's those same priorities which also helped foster the subreddits that I love) -- on the other hand, I think it's just the sense of heebie-jeebies, like being a pro bono lawyer for the mob or something -- as though my presence…

>> I think it's just the sense of heebie-jeebies

That's the start of most 'war-on-obscenity' arguments, and usually leads to no constructive ideas. I hate the topic (abusive pornography/snuff) as much as you, but that rational is inappropriate given the peoples' wide variety of tastes in this world, if the material is indeed legal for your region of the world.

>> More broadly speaking, I would be very willing to bet that an internet community that places harsher standards on acceptable content would result in a better environment for those involved

historically that has only served to push users to other services. the success of the regionalization of 2channel into what 4chan is now is a good example. 4chan's success is widely attributed to the pseudo-anonymity that it's users enjoy, and the founder of the site spoke at TED a few years back on what exactly the benefits of such a relationship with their userbase is.

http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_m00t_poole_the_case_for...

Post reply on HN