Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

developers.kongregate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 158 posts

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#91

Post by ObviousScience »

rtpg wrote: post #83
jzwinck wrote: post #57

Disclaimer: I agree there is a real social problem here. The rest of this message is solely about statistics (inspired by the language of statistics used in the article, like "A/B Test," "statistical significance," and "99.9% confidence level"). The article opens with an analysis of messages to one male and one (self-selected) female from a community which has a large male majority. Most people in the world are heter…

I think the question here is "will gamers harass men or women more". In this case you want your community to be representative of the community at large, so this gender imbalance makes sense. Your point makes sense, but seems irrelevant to the discussion here.

I think it's exactly to the point: the question is if we have a fundamentally more sexist male population online than female population, or if we're seeing confounding variables introducing an apparently difference. I mean, there's clearly a problem with the experience women have with many online communities - just ask them, they're not shy about admitting it. The hard questions are why is their experience like that and what are the main contributing causes.

In fact, the last time we had a discussion about sexism here, someone posted a study to me claiming that it's often confounding community values that create a hotbed of apparent sexism.[1]

So if we're talking about the situation where what we see is a normal (and consistent at large with society) rate of men harassing women, we should be asking what we can do to fix the other parts of the community that enable these people to be unduly felt, such as not properly spam filtering messages between users. Why is it, for instance, I can tell my email client to never display a message with the word 'cunt' in it, except for whitelisted users, but I can't do this when trying to interact with people in public, such as reddit or Kongregate?

I believe what we see time and again when we analyze the numbers is not that we're seeing an inherently higher rate of sexism, to which we need to do something to fix the attitudes of men in general, but rather that we're seeing the undue influence of the usual rate of problematic actors - that is, it's way easier to bother a lot of people as a troll and dominate the conversation online than in person, and its this difference that is the cause of the problems, not the background rate of problematic actors.

[1] http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4291/33...

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#92

Post by verroq »

raquo wrote: post #87
jzwinck wrote: post #57

Disclaimer: I agree there is a real social problem here. The rest of this message is solely about statistics (inspired by the language of statistics used in the article, like "A/B Test," "statistical significance," and "99.9% confidence level"). The article opens with an analysis of messages to one male and one (self-selected) female from a community which has a large male majority. Most people in the world are heter…

That's good statistics, and probably explains generic nastygram data quite well. However, my non-data-backed bet is that males are much more likely to send sexually harassing messages than females, so even in an environment with 50% males and 50% females, females will get much more sexual nastygrams than males.

You also need to account for technical ability. There's way more technical male users who know how not only to harass, but to get away with it.

On sites like Facebook where it's tied to a real life identity, I'd expect to see harassment drop significantly.

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#93

Post by [deleted] »

raquo wrote: post #87
jzwinck wrote: post #57

Disclaimer: I agree there is a real social problem here. The rest of this message is solely about statistics (inspired by the language of statistics used in the article, like "A/B Test," "statistical significance," and "99.9% confidence level"). The article opens with an analysis of messages to one male and one (self-selected) female from a community which has a large male majority. Most people in the world are heter…

That's good statistics, and probably explains generic nastygram data quite well. However, my non-data-backed bet is that males are much more likely to send sexually harassing messages than females, so even in an environment with 50% males and 50% females, females will get much more sexual nastygrams than males.

[deleted]

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#94

Post by silencio »

verroq wrote: post #92
raquo wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's good statistics, and probably explains generic nastygram data quite well. However, my non-data-backed bet is that males are much more likely to send sexually harassing messages than females, so even in an environment with 50% males and 50% females, females will get much more sexual nastygrams than males.

You also need to account for technical ability. There's way more technical male users who know how not only to harass, but to get away with it. On sites like Facebook where it's tied to a real life identity, I'd expect to see harassment drop significantly.

Identities don't change anything. I don't know what the solution is, but that's not it.

My current, occasional stalker - someone in the tech industry, a fellow dev, someone probably reading HN, even - gave away his name, phone, address... and it checks out. Police won't take him as a serious threat though, so neither will anyone else (like Twitter). Police also won't just check on him because I think he's schizophrenic from the very weird things he has sent me in the past. I just block him everywhere after the fact and hope that he has family/friends that will eventually check on him.

My last favorite game I stopped playing because people were harassing me, people that were easily tied to their FB accounts with their full name, employer, address, and more. They didn't give a shit. Neither did Blizzard. No care about rape threats. Okay. I'm done.

I'm also super disillusioned given what some people I know in this industry are saying about GG. They don't care that their real name and sometimes their employer is on their Twitter profile, even if they harass people with it. And of course, brace myself for the "but that was out of bounds and evil!", the handful of folks I can remember that have been fired for harassment on twitter - all happened because they had a real name+employer written down somewhere, and they thought they would get away with it.

Not to mention I'm really glad I'm out of the dating market because my okc and other dating site inboxes were cesspools. Again, real names or more than enough info to tie a person to their real name, and still they persist. I had the courtesy to reply to every message that wasn't some variation on "wanna suck my %&#$"/"your hot"/"i wanna do _____ to you" and yet some people still ended up going "you're a bitch"/"you're so fat i feel sorry for you i bet you don't get laid"/(rape threats).

I only wish real life identities were a deterrent, but that only happens if there are consequences. Given what's going on, apparently there are no consequences except in the oddest direction ever (with all the doxxing going on).

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#95

Post by tzs »

htns wrote: post #26
mesozoic wrote: post #14

Gamergate is leaking again.

Yeah, I've heard about Gamergate in a couple of wildly different contexts. What's the deal with it?

Surprisingly, one of the best overviews I've seen was in Reason: http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/12/gamergate-part-i-sex-l...

Unlike most of the other references people tend to cite in answer to questions like yours, they don't have an obvious stake in the matter.

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#98

Post by meowface »

gohrt wrote: post #77
timmclean wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The psychological impact of "I'll drink your blood out of your c--- after I rip it open" [1] is very different from that of recruiter spam. [1] https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/504718160902492160

Wow, Twitter allows this content on their network?

Obviously not. The account was deleted and banned shortly after the tweets were made. Note that that screenshot was taken about 3 minutes after the account was created.

It's basically just Internet trolls registering Twitter accounts behind proxies and saying the edgiest things they can think of to stir the pot.

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#99

Post by meowface »

wismer wrote: post #65
paulnechifor wrote: post #55

I thought better of HN before this. It looks like if you don't toe the line you get downvoted and your comments get [killed].

There's a really good reason for it and it's up to you to figure that part out.

There is no reason to delete a post that presents a rational argument without use of insults or ad hominem attacks, regardless of if you think the viewpoint is "destroying [insert any topical political or current events issue here]".

Re: A Natural A/B Test of Harassment

#100

Post by Natsu »

michaelbuckbee wrote: post #34
htns wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I've heard about Gamergate in a couple of wildly different contexts. What's the deal with it?

Good overview here: http://deadspin.com/the-future-of-the-culture-wars-is-here-a...

The closest I've seen to neutral coverage is this:

http://www.popehat.com/2014/10/21/gamer-gate-three-stages-to...

I'm not going to claim it's anywhere particularly close to true neutral, however.

Post reply on HN