Live data from Hacker News

Trouble at the Koolaid Point

seriouspony.com

131–140 of 285 posts

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#131
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…

I agree completely and yet ... I feel a bit responsible too.

In my mind, Kathy has credibility because she built it the old fashioned way - being worthy of trust. Being a Java developer, I watched JavaRanch grow and I especially loved watching her presentations (the BoS talks are amazing).

And yet I under-appreciated what these attacks were doing to her as well as how severe they'd become. No having celebrity of my own, perhaps I can't understand it fully but what I could have done is at least speak against the growing hatred.

I'm going to start refuting trolls (when I can) and I'm going to try to be that person who's dependable under fire - Kathy, I've got your back ... and I'm sorry for my quiet complicity with your past attackers.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

― Edmund Burke

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#132
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't call MetaFilter a particularly high quality community. Discussions there can have just as many trite and trollish comments as your average subreddit. How MetaFilter differs is in that it features a rigid, hierarchical moderation structure, with gatekeepers who ensure posted content meets the stringent politically-correct tastes of its leadership. As a result I have seen legitimately interesting, good-faith…

No-one who uses "politically correct" unironically is going to have opinions worth listening to.

Respectful and polite debate can be truly amazing but it doesn't happen often enough and, when it does, it's really easy for bystanders to shout down one of the debaters. Political correctness in only one tool people use to make sure their side wins ... let's hear the debate instead and decide rationally.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#133
post #14

[deleted]

> What I don't get is why people willingly go onto an online community (knowing that there exist a potential for harassment) and then cry about it when it happens. > As before, downvoters should explain their reasoning. All right. I'm downvoting you for (a) victim-blaming, because you're basically saying that anyone who participates in any online community should expect an organized campaign of social violence and ha…

I wish I could downvote, but I don't havethe "karma" and it appears the original post was deleted. That's like saying Sure you can go to school, but if you do, don't be surprised if you get bullied. The internet frankly is/is becoming a "right" to have, and being told that using that right justifies this crap is crazy.... So....I'll just have to upvote your comment, I was actually afraid to click on the comments for this post, (I keep hearing crap about how HN commenters are the worst), Fortunately for the most part people were empathetic, and not complete "jerks". I am thankful for that. Unfortunately there are/always will be those that pull this kinda junk.

I seem to vaguely remember Codinghorror talking about the various ban types. In some ways it would be nice to see that kind of thing implemented for people that keep doing this, it wouldn't prevent the real life attacks, but at least online could be prevented, and in some cases if you don't get any traction online, well....it might just stop there (for that troll anyways). You can't stop all the crazies all of the time, but you can (maybe) stop some of the crazies some of the time..... This got really long, sorry, but I just get really sad when I hear about the harrassment, and needed to vocalize it.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#134
post #37

Is it known how doxers are able to get information like social security numbers? I can understand a determined party being able to find, say, your phone number and home address, but certain information just shouldn't be available to the public.

Lots of ways. They're actually relatively cheap to buy if you're sufficiently motivated. This might be of interest to you: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/10/id-theft-service-customer...

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#135
post #119
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The situation is improved by telling people that "yes, thieves actually exist and stealing causes real harm". People who have not experienced harassing tend to downplay it à la "Well I haven't seen it happen", "It can't be that bad" etc.

How is it improved? Will the thieves stop stealing if they know it causes real harm? Will the trolls/psychopaths stop harassing if they know it's really that bad? What if that's what they want?

The situation is improved by other people knowing there's a problem. The other people will pay more attention to spot thieves and try to stop them. The point is to make society less welcoming for thieves.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#136
post #43

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.

> Freedom of speech mean that these ideas can be challenged in the public sphere.

I will note that much of HN doesn't seem to believe this - when the Brendan Eich thing happened, and people were choosing to boycott Mozilla for his views (thus using their freedom of association and freedom of speech to call for him to be removed from that post), many seemed to believe that Brendan Eich's rights to freedom of speech and political freedom were being attacked by anybody who chose not to associate with him because of his views.

The fact is, any individual or entity can, and should, choose not to associate with those who they see as causing harm to others. That's an individual choice. Free speech and free thought should not mean that anybody give anybody else a free pass to cause harm or spread ideas that are likely to cause harm - and we should use every right we have to ensure this, so long as it doesn't end up with people losing their rights to food, water, shelter, and (a duty of the Government and the people) protection from direct abuse.

Your right to freedom of speech do not mean that I have to listen to you, interact with you, or provide a platform for you, no matter whether I'm one person or a multinational. You can be angry that I won't - I'm angry that the mainstream media won't give my minority a platform - but I don't have to. The only entity which has to be fair is the Government.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#137

Yikes! What an incredibly brave blog to write. I can't even begin to fathom what life has been like for her over the last 10 years. I don't know any of the backstory to this, so I'm taking the blog at face value. Even if only 1% of what she say is accurate (and I'm inclined to lean the opposite way), it's absolutely horrendous. How is it possible that people behave this way? I don't understand what the line of justif…

People maintain their self-image by doing down others. That's all it is.

It happens that this is an extreme example of this common phenomenon. Some men find successful women extremely threatening.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#138
post #106
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…

Moderation is hard toget right and it leaves the door open to destructive trolling. So, while I agree wth you that moderated spaces are better than unmoderated we need to rememberthat it's not a panacea.

It's pretty hard to learn moderation. There are almost no good resources and you have to learn through failure and reflection.

(I've been moderating bulletin boards for 15 years)

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#139
Couple of comments:

1. I know of weev from hacker circles. He really is this douchetastic. But what's really insane to me is that there's a bunch of women in the hacker scene who adore him. I couldn't quite understand it, until I saw them also adore Adrian Lamo, and so my theory is very close to Kathy's here: hero worship distorts reality. In order to stop people from enabling abusive trolls like this, someone has to debunk the hero status. Which is a lot more difficult than it sounds.

2. Being a troll is about one thing, and one thing only: power. The power to abuse someone and laugh and get away with it. The essential requirement of trolling is that you make someone upset. So there's a very real requirement that you do not respond in the way the troll wants in order for them to put their attention on something else. But trolls are varied, and sometimes they'll just keep plugging away at you. In cases like these you have to change tactics, though there's no guarantee anything will definitely put them off.

3. In general, trolls have goals. Usually it's to harass you until you literally disappear into the ether. Once they can't find any trace of you anymore, they have nothing left to do, and so they find another target. In this sense it's sometimes necessary to literally leave the [online or physical] community you face harassment in, or find a way to force the troll out of it. In either case it's basically a war, and you have to decide to either abandon the area or fight it out to the death.

4. I believe I understand why she was targeted. She has opinions that some people hate. Why, I have no frigging idea; ask a shrink. The point is, when people hate something, they lash out. And the internet is basically a hate delivery mechanism. And here's my opinion that will probably get me downvoted into hell: there is no way to stop this, other than leaving the internet.

Editorial rant (sorry about the length):

Being abused was not Kathy's fault. Unfortunately, you don't have to do anything at all to be abused on the internet. Just your picture, or a handle, or anything can be fodder for trolls. You can do absolutely nothing but exist and people will still try to abuse you.

In my opinion, from what I know of the internet, there is virtually no way to stop someone that hates you from abusing you here. There are no closed systems on the internet. E-mail is public, Twitter is intended to be public, but even if you make it private there's still a picture and a handle to start with (AND you can still direct tweets at private accounts), with Facebook you can avoid non-friends but not on comment sections, and on top of it all these accounts can be hacked. Private information like address, SS#, phone, etc can all be gotten incredibly, stupidly easily, without you ever going online. The internet is the easiest attack platform there is.

If you are visible in any way, you are a potential target for trolls, period. And I don't see any simple solution to any of this. We could re-design our internet services to protect people's privacy and anonymity better from abuse, but this wouldn't protect people who want to publish works like Kathy has. We could try to develop better tools to combat trolling, but that might become an arms race, who knows. Maybe we need to require a ss# and a picture ID for people to make accounts on social media. But regular accounts might just get hacked to be used as sock puppets.

So perhaps there is no technical solution. Perhaps we just need to change the way our entire society treats itself, both online and off. Peacefully boycott sources of abuse, negativity, ridicule and scorn online (i'm looking at you, every-forum-on-the-internet). Combat the causes of insecurity and fear and hate. Provide more social services to support the emotional welfare of all people. Something other than band-aids and coalitions. Maybe it'll never happen in our lifetimes, but at some point we've got to sit down and figure out a way to encourage people to be compassionate, or we're all doomed in the much larger picture of world-wide human affairs.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#140
post #16
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.

The real-names policy is itself a vector of "trolling", especially transphobia and homophobia; when it was instituted on Facebook some people took it upon themselves to report drag queens and transpeople in very large numbers.
Post reply on HN