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

231–240 of 285 posts

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#231

Post by mkr-hn »

vertex-four wrote: post #217
dubfan wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 But then you don't have free speech or thought anymore. You only have the freedom to express ideas that are deemed to be acceptable by whoever holds the most sociopolitical power at any one time. And there's never a guarantee that the progressive side will hold that pow…

> You only have the freedom to express ideas that are deemed to be acceptable by whoever holds the most sociopolitical power at any one time. If there's any reasonable amount of support for your ideas, any at all, you really should have no problem finding work, friends, and wealth. We're not exactly at a point where LGBT rights, feminism, and similar subjects have anywhere close to unanimous support. You only have to…

> Yes, that's part of a decent protest - telling the company what they can do to get you back as a customer - and Mozilla could've chosen to ignore them and potentially lose them as customers and community members. That's fine. That would be their choice. Many companies have done so and succeeded - Chick-fil-a, as one example.

Chick fil A pulled back on most of its homophobic donations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_c...

I still don't eat there, but only because Bojangles is closer and better.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#233

Post by wpietri »

golemotron wrote: post #199
mononcqc wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That something is legal does not force it to be acceptable by any business whatsoever.

That's not my argument. My argument is that there is inherent good in providing space for all opinions. That's what liberal democracy is about. Reddit gets to choose whether it will be one of those platforms and it looks like they have. You can boycott Reddit for that choice but why not boycott the US for permitting speech you disagree with too?

That is not in fact what liberal democracy is about.

Democracy requires us not to use the apparatus of the state to suppress opinions by force. But that's it.

It certainly doesn't require us to provide material support for all opinions, no matter how toxic. Neither does it require tolerance of speech that goes beyond opinion. Incitement to riot, for example, is a crime. So is making threats, or conspiring to commit other crimes.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#234

Post by ijk »

Mithaldu wrote: post #224
ijk wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh look, an example of the exact thing the original article is talking about, down to the unsourced accusations of DMCA takedowns for censorship.

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 ever…

Well, Kain's article is a description of the exact kind of harassment campaign described in the original article. So the first sense I meant is that the contents of the article are the exact thing talked about.

For the DMCA: "unverifiable" is probably a better description than "unsourced", but the part I wanted to highlight was how this whole thing followed the exact playbook described in Kathy Sierra's essay.

Second, while Kain is trying to take a balanced approach, he unfortunately only looks at the surface of the issues, reporting the accusations in great detail. This is a dynamic that's also pointed out in the original article: uncritically accepting a new martyr while glossing over the original harassment. Lots about "gamers are over" and TFYC, virtually nothing about the mob harassment for anyone other than Phil Fish. And absolutely nothing about the organized astroturfing in the IRC channels, which has been documented extensively.

The accusations are repeated without much introspection, in a way that it can be used as an apologetic hammer against either side. It may not be actively harmful in itself, but it doesn't do much to actually inform the reader of all of the issues.

For an even-handed look at the topic, I'd rather suggest, say, a scholarly look at the issues that acknowledges some of the problems: http://www.firstpersonscholar.com/we-will-force-gaming-to-be... or at least an article by someone who is less personally involved than Kain is: http://www.vox.com/2014/9/6/6111065/gamergate-explained-ever...

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#235

Post by wpietri »

kansface wrote: post #42
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.

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.

Free speech, sure. But freedom of association, too. And accepting the consequences of one's actions.

If misogynists and abusers want to go and construct their own forums, nobody can legally stop them (as long as their discussion stops short of the various sorts of criminal speech, like conspiracy to commit). But nobody is legally obligated to support them, either.

Reddit tomorrow could say, "Welp, we're not going to host people who cause harm in way X". And that's perfectly American because they'd be exercising their own rights. That they choose to support abusers is legal, but it is well within everybody else's rights to point that out, with volume and at length.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#236

Post by wpietri »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #149
arrrg wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by not solve the problem you mean not completely eliminate, then yeah. Of course. Obviously. What’s with all this binary thinking? It’s completely non-sensical and irrelevant. Twitter is an important tool for communication for many people, so if harassing people gets harder there it makes it easier for those people, even if the harassers move elsewhere. In other places they do get less direct access, so their impa…

Sure, of course the harassers can't attack people directly on Twitter if they're banned from Twitter. But what the article is talking about is also doxxing, sending things to physical addresses, etc, which are by far the more distressing elements of harassing. Kicking people off Twitter does nothing to stop or even slow those things down. It's not "binary thinking", so please don't try to dismiss it as such. It's ack…

Banning those people from Twitter would do plenty.

Every bit of harm makes things worse. Ergo, every time we eliminate some bit of harm, we make things better.

The Twitter harassment is obviously material, because a) many accounts of harassment mention it clearly, and b) the harassers do it because it works.

Further, the harassment shows obvious patterns of escalation. It is entirely reasonable to believe that if the harassers get no oxygen on Twitter, there will be less escalation.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#237

Post by wpietri »

swandriven wrote: post #230

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 primaril…

> 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?

Because you show all of the sympathy and concern of an albino crocodile? Because you indulge in blatant victim-blaming? Because after (maybe) reading about the horrific campaign of calculated abuse, all you can care about is yourself?

And, of course, because you recognize that other people will (correctly) think less of you. So rather than owning up to your opinions, you are only brave enough to mewl from the shadows.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#238

Post by mrexroad »

golemotron wrote: post #199
mononcqc wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That something is legal does not force it to be acceptable by any business whatsoever.

That's not my argument. My argument is that there is inherent good in providing space for all opinions. That's what liberal democracy is about. Reddit gets to choose whether it will be one of those platforms and it looks like they have. You can boycott Reddit for that choice but why not boycott the US for permitting speech you disagree with too?

Because real-life harassment isn't protected by first amendment.

A large part of the problem is people, like you, who view all of this as someone just expressing their opinion equally with others. That has nothing to do with targeted harassment and death threats to one's family.

In real life, people get prosecuted for this stuff. Unfortunately there's so many obstacles and hurdles to prosecuting Internet harassment that it only happens if the harassee is someone famous.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#239

Post by tedks »

mkr-hn wrote: post #229
tedks wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Where are the violent neo-Nazis? Where are the Baptists going out gaybashing after Sunday service? I don't see it. You said a lot of airy, high-minded things without actually supporting your position.

In France, lighting fires outside synagogues and chanting "Jews to the gas": http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/07/antisemitism-...

On the Mexican-American border with assault weapons, picking off migrant workers trying to find work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuteman_Civil_Defense_Corps

In Greece, leading a prominent political party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_%28political_party...

And in America, dressed as police, shooting any black man they care to.

This isn't the greatest part of white supremacy or homophobia but it does exist and to claim it doesn't is either ignorance or (now that you don't have that excuse) willful complicity.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#240

Post by wpietri »

dragontamer wrote: post #206
phkahler wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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. What about ending anonymity? Much as I like the idea of remaining annoymous online (not that I am here), there are legal means to deal with the extreme end of the trolling spectrum so long as you can identify them. The next issue that pops up of course is privacy. We need t…

Honestly, removing anonymity has made things worse over time. Facebook and Youtube now have open racists who push their malignant opinion upon everyone now, and are proud enough to sign their name next to it.

I think this is, to put it mildly, undemonstrated.

The KKK wore hoods for a reason. Sure, there were plenty of racists willing to be open about their views. But letting people be anonymous assholes greatly increases the awfulness.

Even gamers know it: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

Post reply on HN