Trouble at the Koolaid Point

At this point though, the "con" of feeding trolls is outweighed by the "pro" of increasing public awareness. Plus, the "trolls" involved here are so severe that they no longer require a response to continue. The core of the "don't feed the trolls" argument seems to be that they will eventually give up, but that only works with the mildest of offenders.

It could however be argued that by pulling away from the public eye she actually was feeding them, and that the best course of action would be to act like they don't exist. I still find it doubtfull that it would have stopped it though, as in the minds of the most obsessed trolls the very act of ignoring them tells them their tactics are working.

Will writing this make things worse for her? Probably, but saying it's her fault makes as much sense blaming sexual assault victims for wearing anything even remotely revealing.

-sent from phone, so please forgive spelling/grammar

It's the exact opposite in fact.

The original article is about trolls making up lies and victims having little recourse.

The lie in this case is "Zoe traded sex for press coverage". Kain explains how there is no basis for this claim whatsoever ("the initial concerns were quickly proven to be all smoke and no fire") and then goes on to explain how, despite being based on nothing, this managed to blow up anyhow by everyone making allegations that are nearly impossible to make fact, yet are taken as fact by many others.

This kind of thing is exactly what the original article is talking about, only that in the GamerGate case it's happening in both directions.

As for the DMCA thing: The video was down. While i haven't even watched it, as it's probably full of bullshit, you can go to the video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5CXOafuTXM ), click "... More > Statistics > Daily" and see the view count drop to zero in august for a few days. This outage may have had several reasons, but due to the original uploader linking to what seems to be a DMCA takedown notice on his tumblr ( http://archive.today/UqAwg ) it appears that she did send that. And that is all Kain said.

Given these two facts, and how they do belong into the greater discussion, i am curious how you'd expect him to express that differently.

I'd argue it's orthogonal.

>And of course, junk traffic breeds more junk traffic. Even if the first generation of a shady subreddit might make this up with quality in other parts of your site, it will invariably attract generation 2 and later which will create a mini-eternal September.

You can argue both ways, the quality increase will attract more quality users.

Actually, white nationalists and other racist groups depend on liberals like you allowing them a platform to appear like a legitimate alternative in the political system. They use that legitimacy to attract new members, and there's a bright line from that to violence to Kristallnacht.

Europeans understand this, which is why they've outlawed Nazism. It's to express as a society that such a thing is not acceptable.

By expressing that it is acceptable, you are participating tacitly.

In contrast, expressing at every point, in every interaction, that white supremacy in all its forms (radical white supremacy, institutionalized white supremacy, cultural appropriation, colonialism, imperialism) is fucked up and fucking wrong and disgusting, you are chipping away at the fascists' resolve. People have a tendency to conform; it is physically difficult not to. In experimental settings, people who have to act nonconformingly feel physically uncomfortable and experience a fight-or-flight response. After experiencing this enough, people will stop being fascists.

In contrast, it's been demonstrated time and again that "rational" argument does nothing but solidify people's pre-existing ideas. So if you want to increase the chance a Nazi stays a Nazi, continue to debate with them. But remember that unlike your high school debate club, the Nazi will, empowered by his strengthened beliefs, go out and kill people. And their blood will be on your hands, because you had a chance to weaken his beliefs instead of making them stronger and you made them stronger.

I think humans maintain their integrity by rejecting all forms of oppression, from patriarchy to white supremacy to homophobia to capitalism, and I think that you sell your integrity away by capitalizing on your privilege and oppressing people, either actively and directly, by being a nazi; actively and indirectly, by arguing for a liberal concept of free speech; passively and directly, by ignoring opportunities to fight when you could; or passively and indirectly, by remaining silent and therefore complicit.

You are wrong, empirically, on every claim you have made, and you are wrong morally, because you have been given a chance to eliminate injustice and have chosen to back the side of oppression.

History is a tidal wave; you can either ride it or be crushed by it. The choice is yours.

Why is it the only time I hear about Kathy Sierra is when she's talking about being harassed?

The world is full of all types of people who get their kicks in all types of ways. Unless you propose monitoring everybody so that any offensive speech can be punished, there is always going to be a contingent that will capitalize on any chink in psychological armor just to get someone's ire up. When someone's image primarily consists of being a victim, it's not terribly surprising that they're going to serve as a lightning rod for all sorts of harassment - it's known to work after all!

Frankly, what's sickening is seeing otherwise reasonable people proposing that the solution might be taking away anonymity, perhaps even at the protocol level! If you'd like to be so mollycoddled, then stick to your "web 2.0" VC-gardens. Please leave the Internet alone with your misguided surveillance wet dream "solutions."

And finally, if this article itself is about harassment and speaking truth to power, then why do I feel compelled to use a throwaway account to post this comment?

~8 year HN member.