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

71–80 of 285 posts

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#71

Post by cmdkeen »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #12
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.

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.

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.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#72

Post by PhasmaFelis »

[deleted] wrote: post #33
phpnode wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are firmly blaming the victim, that's why you are being downvoted. The answer to all this cannot be "there are assholes on the internet so don't go on the internet"

[deleted]

> maybe if downvoters explained their actions, it won't look like they are trying to censor discussion.

Hey, you willingly went into an online community. You should have expected to be downvoted into oblivion, and also possibly doxxed and swatted.

Right?

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#73

Post by [deleted] »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #72
[deleted] wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

> maybe if downvoters explained their actions, it won't look like they are trying to censor discussion. Hey, you willingly went into an online community. You should have expected to be downvoted into oblivion, and also possibly doxxed and swatted. Right?

[deleted]

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#74

Post by deciplex »

McDoku wrote: post #43
deciplex wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#75

Post by iherbig »

tomp wrote: post #61
iherbig wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I don't feel that we, as a society, should tolerate terrible things in general, much less let them prosper. You mean premarital sex, homosexuality, genital mutilation and women showing their faces? Hint: two of those things are still considered normal in much of the world.

I understand the difficulties. However, just as I would not support a lawless society, I do not support the laissez-faire attitude of the reddit admins. And the reasons are much the same.

We choose between letting everyone go free and dealing with the consequences, or restricting people and living with the consequences. There is no right answer.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#76

Post by [deleted] »

paddyoloughlin wrote: post #53
[deleted] wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

I am not a downvoter, but using your own analogy, your post is like saying "Why are people complaining about the existence of minefields?", criticising people for suggesting that something should be done about the minefields and ignoring the fact that the victims of minefields are mostly people who didn't know there was a minefield there. Also, I think in plenty of these cases the victims are not going to the places…

[deleted]

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#77

Post by waterlesscloud »

cmdkeen wrote: post #71
waterlesscloud wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 socia…

That doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it to other venues.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#78

Post by taliesinb »

I'm grateful that I can read the author's account of her experiences, and her analysis of what is going on sociologically. Her story is utterly shocking to read and I feel terrible for her.

The general phenomenon of misogynist trolling, and in particular the wave of misogyny masquerading as #gamergate has been astonishing to read about. There's something deeply, deeply disturbing and raw going on here and it is hard to see the contours of it.

It's a pity that a 12-hour old HN submission [1] of Anita Sarkeesian's moving talk at XOXO [2] didn't get much traction (indeed a sock-puppet immediately emerged to denounce the submission as 'trash').

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8423719

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah8mhDW6Shs

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#79

Post by iherbig »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #35
iherbig wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem there is that the range of what people consider "terrible" is quite broad. Who decides?

Society decides. And sometimes it comes up with the wrong answers. But I don't think that pure freedom comes up with the right answers, either. There are consequences to both sides, and the consequences of no action can be just as bad as the consequences of too much action.

There is a wide gap between being hesitant and serious about prohibiting things and accepting everything for fear of overreach, in my opinion. We need to work towards a middle-ground.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#80

Post by pjc50 »

McDoku wrote: post #43
deciplex wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ideas can be discussed and challenged. Threats and harrasment are not ideas and should be dealt with differently.

Organisation of campaigns of threat, harrasment and violence is on the boundary, and needs careful consideration. But the worst case is very bad; a sufficiently powerful hate campaign can provoke genocide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libr...

Post reply on HN