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

41–50 of 285 posts

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#41

Post by paddyoloughlin »

pmjordan wrote: post #21
rjknight wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 solutio…

Victim blaming/"they deserve it": "For the most part, high-profile "targets" from the troll's perspective are already known to the public anyway."

I read that differently from you.

I think the author was simply pointing out that well-known people are well known, so their privacy is, almost by definition, limited anyway.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#42

Post by kansface »

iherbig wrote: post #31
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?

I am not who you asked, but if I may step in? It bothers me for the same reason it bothers me that those things exist. They are terrible, and should not be given a platform. I don't feel that we, as a society, should tolerate terrible things in general, much less let them prosper.

May I ask where you are from? Free speech - bigoted, hateful, maybe untrue, or otherwise, is perhaps the one enduring (sacred) tenet of American society.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#43

Post by McDoku »

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…

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.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#44

Post by thesteamboat »

rjknight wrote: post #11
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.…

Furthermore mobs are much easier to rile up than to disperse. I'd suspect the problem is even worse online where the mob is distributed and whose only coordination is around mutually inciting each other.

Literary evidence from Shakespeare, when a mob wishes to avenge Caeser's death, from Julius Caeser, Act 3 Scene 3:

  Third Citizen
    Your name, sir, truly.
  CINNA THE POET
    Truly, my name is Cinna.
  First Citizen
    Tear him to pieces; he's a conspirator.
  CINNA THE POET
    I am Cinna the poet, I am Cinna the poet.
  Fourth Citizen
    Tear him for his bad verses, tear him for his bad verses.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#45

Post by TeMPOraL »

valas wrote: post #16
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.

I guess it's because Facebook and Google+ are built mostly around reinforcing meatspace relationships. It's harder to be an asshole if your family, friends and cow-orkers read your comments.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#47

Post by gknoy »

pmjordan wrote: post #21
rjknight wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 solutio…

Victim blaming/"they deserve it": "For the most part, high-profile "targets" from the troll's perspective are already known to the public anyway."

I think they meant more that it was the trolls' targeting critera ("Has lots of Attention, and 'doesn't deserve it" implies someone you can google, or who has a relatively large following), NOT that it was any implication that the target deserves such abuse.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#48

Post by pmjordan »

paddyoloughlin wrote: post #41
pmjordan wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Victim blaming/"they deserve it": "For the most part, high-profile "targets" from the troll's perspective are already known to the public anyway."

I read that differently from you. I think the author was simply pointing out that well-known people are well known, so their privacy is, almost by definition, limited anyway.

This handily ignores that doxxing is not some virtuous research and release of pure facts in the public interest. Its purpose is to turn lies about the victim into the publicly perceived truth (defamation) by mixing them with the weight of real facts.

That people who have some level of public exposure (as you and I do, posting on a public forum) will have some personal information out in the open is obvious. The thread-starter appears to be playing down the damage that doxxing can do "I do want to gently call into question the danger of the attack surfaces". To me, their admittedly unspoken, conclusion from point 1 is therefore "they had it coming".

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#49

Post by mkal_tsr »

olefoo wrote: post #5

After reading this, I'm battling the urge to suggest technical solutions to social problems. Except that in this case the social problems are caused by the fact the internet is a house built on sand and the underlying protocols don't support authentication or accountability to anything like the degree traditional public conversations did. That said, the choices that were made in the 1980's and early '90s to support p…

Well, the public internet is global so if someone else can speak your language, it doesn't matter what their societal customs are, there's bound to be differences in word choices, ethics, morals, etc. And do you think that's really going to stop people? People use their real names on Facebook and news websites all the time and they're vicious to each other, anonymity doesn't always matter. People need education on wtf it means to be on a public internet site. If it's too much, move into a private site. Do I think that's a great solution? Not at all. But, I suspect it's more realistic than ensuring everyone around the world treats everyone else with hugs and kisses. It's an asshole problem, not a technical problem. But hey, now there's more reason for people to use privacy-focused means to communicate (sites, apps, networks, etc), even if that reason is the result of assholes.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#50

Post by iSnow »

serf wrote: post #20
jmduke wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>historically that has only served to push users to other services.

But this is exactly what you want - get rid of the low-quality users and offload them somewhere else. reddit has gotten itself quite a questionable image tolerating pornographic jailbait, necrophiliac porn, stolen nudes and domestic abusers on its platform for very long.

Post reply on HN