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

The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative

onlineabuseprevention.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 27 posts

Re: The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative

#11

Post by hyugh »

NahBrah wrote: post #8
daviross wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Been working pretty well for me, and the code's been pretty straightforward. I mean, unless you have more substantive issues with it you can raise and substantiate, this reads as just static and noise, really.

The issue is that it works on the premise of guilt by association. It blocked an IGDA chairman FFS. The only thing it serves to do is filter out opinions you disagree with, which does nothing but harm anyone who cares to think outside their comfort zone.

It works exactly according to its intended algorithm, which is very clearly documented on the GitHub page. Yet you claim it's poorly coded.

The "only thing it does" is block people who follow specific accounts, as they overwhelmingly tend to be annoying GamerGaters on Twitter. You only find it harmful because people you haven't personally annoyed yet are pre-emptively blocking you from doing so.

Re: The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative

#12

Post by [deleted] »

NahBrah wrote: post #8
daviross wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Been working pretty well for me, and the code's been pretty straightforward. I mean, unless you have more substantive issues with it you can raise and substantiate, this reads as just static and noise, really.

The issue is that it works on the premise of guilt by association. It blocked an IGDA chairman FFS. The only thing it serves to do is filter out opinions you disagree with, which does nothing but harm anyone who cares to think outside their comfort zone.

[deleted]

Re: The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative

#13

Post by NahBrah »

hyugh wrote: post #11
NahBrah wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that it works on the premise of guilt by association. It blocked an IGDA chairman FFS. The only thing it serves to do is filter out opinions you disagree with, which does nothing but harm anyone who cares to think outside their comfort zone.

It works exactly according to its intended algorithm, which is very clearly documented on the GitHub page. Yet you claim it's poorly coded. The "only thing it does" is block people who follow specific accounts, as they overwhelmingly tend to be annoying GamerGaters on Twitter. You only find it harmful because people you haven't personally annoyed yet are pre-emptively blocking you from doing so.

It's a <300 line Perl script that anyone could have thrown together in less than an hour. If that's all it takes to be a coder worthy of anything other than code monkey work then I've been looking for jobs in the wrong places. And if you really think that someone following someone you disagree with on Twitter is grounds for never interacting with them at all, then I'm sorry to say but you exist in a nice little hugbox.

Re: The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative

#14

Post by hyugh »

NahBrah wrote: post #10
hyugh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Abuse" isn't ambiguous at all. Anyone with a lick of common sense can easily distinguish criticism and abuse. Criticism is when you civilly express an opinion of someone or something else, or an action or statement they've made. Criticism is calling someone out and saying you expect more, or have X problem with Y statement, etc. Abuse is when it moves into personal attacks, or calls for others to engage in personal…

Done absolutely nothing to stop it? GamerGate rooted out one of Anita's harassers and gave her his info. GamerGate has a harassment patrol that actively reports abusers. Maybe you should look at your own perception and realize that you're focusing on the 1% that is bad and ignoring the 99% that isn't?

So you're saying GamerGate proceeded to dox someone it didn't like and gave that person's info to Anita? Yeah, good job differentiating "criticism" and "abuse" in that example.

Who cares about the 99% that is good when GamerGate is continually defined, in every Google search, every Twitter search, every news article in well-known international journalist papers does nothing except point out the continual stream of violent, sexist, and disgusting rhetoric and vitriol come from the hashtag?

Let me give you a piece of advice: if you don't want to be affiliated with the harassment aspect of GamerGate, stop affiliating yourself with GamerGate. Because there is literally no one else outside of GamerGate itself who thinks it's about anything other than harassment.

Re: The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative

#15

Post by swatow »

hyugh wrote: post #14
NahBrah wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Done absolutely nothing to stop it? GamerGate rooted out one of Anita's harassers and gave her his info. GamerGate has a harassment patrol that actively reports abusers. Maybe you should look at your own perception and realize that you're focusing on the 1% that is bad and ignoring the 99% that isn't?

So you're saying GamerGate proceeded to dox someone it didn't like and gave that person's info to Anita? Yeah, good job differentiating "criticism" and "abuse" in that example. Who cares about the 99% that is good when GamerGate is continually defined, in every Google search, every Twitter search, every news article in well-known international journalist papers does nothing except point out the continual stream of vi…

You seem to have moved the goalposts here, from actually being responsible for abuse, as a group, to being perceived as being abusive.

Re: The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative

#16

Post by hyugh »

NahBrah wrote: post #13
hyugh wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works exactly according to its intended algorithm, which is very clearly documented on the GitHub page. Yet you claim it's poorly coded. The "only thing it does" is block people who follow specific accounts, as they overwhelmingly tend to be annoying GamerGaters on Twitter. You only find it harmful because people you haven't personally annoyed yet are pre-emptively blocking you from doing so.

It's a <300 line Perl script that anyone could have thrown together in less than an hour. If that's all it takes to be a coder worthy of anything other than code monkey work then I've been looking for jobs in the wrong places. And if you really think that someone following someone you disagree with on Twitter is grounds for never interacting with them at all, then I'm sorry to say but you exist in a nice little hugbo…

Your primary objection to it seems to be entirely predicated on the fact that it prevents you from annoying people who would rather be left alone. "<300 line Perl script" isn't a substantive or useful criticism.

Re: The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative

#17

Post by GamerGirl »

NahBrah wrote: post #8
daviross wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Been working pretty well for me, and the code's been pretty straightforward. I mean, unless you have more substantive issues with it you can raise and substantiate, this reads as just static and noise, really.

The issue is that it works on the premise of guilt by association. It blocked an IGDA chairman FFS. The only thing it serves to do is filter out opinions you disagree with, which does nothing but harm anyone who cares to think outside their comfort zone.

It did block an IGDA chair! One who had deep connections to MRA sites, responded by tagging in #gamergate to get his friends to take up his fight against this "unfair" censorship, and shortly after this incident found himself to no longer be associated with the IGDA.

System working very very much as intended there!

The only /real/ false positives it's ever generated that I'm aware of are a handful of people closely following hate group leaders to report on them, all of whom easily passed through the whitelisting process, and support the blocker wholeheartedly.

Re: The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative

#18

Post by GamerGirl »

NahBrah wrote: post #10
hyugh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Abuse" isn't ambiguous at all. Anyone with a lick of common sense can easily distinguish criticism and abuse. Criticism is when you civilly express an opinion of someone or something else, or an action or statement they've made. Criticism is calling someone out and saying you expect more, or have X problem with Y statement, etc. Abuse is when it moves into personal attacks, or calls for others to engage in personal…

Done absolutely nothing to stop it? GamerGate rooted out one of Anita's harassers and gave her his info. GamerGate has a harassment patrol that actively reports abusers. Maybe you should look at your own perception and realize that you're focusing on the 1% that is bad and ignoring the 99% that isn't?

And strike 2. The "Gamergate harassment patrol" operates like the "firemen" from Farenheit 451. They actively seek out new twitter users to harass, particularly those who call them out for doing so.

By all means keep trying to hold up terrible people as examples of "the good ones" though. It's entertaining.

Re: The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative

#19

Post by breadbox »

NahBrah wrote: post #13
hyugh wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works exactly according to its intended algorithm, which is very clearly documented on the GitHub page. Yet you claim it's poorly coded. The "only thing it does" is block people who follow specific accounts, as they overwhelmingly tend to be annoying GamerGaters on Twitter. You only find it harmful because people you haven't personally annoyed yet are pre-emptively blocking you from doing so.

It's a <300 line Perl script that anyone could have thrown together in less than an hour. If that's all it takes to be a coder worthy of anything other than code monkey work then I've been looking for jobs in the wrong places. And if you really think that someone following someone you disagree with on Twitter is grounds for never interacting with them at all, then I'm sorry to say but you exist in a nice little hugbo…

When the two choices given you are to exist in a hugbox or get abused and insulted every day for a few years, I think I know what sane people are going to do. Including you, despite your bluster. There are other ways to counteract being in an echo chamber that don't involve constantly turning the other cheek to a mob of wild assholes.

Re: The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative

#20

Post by daviross »

NahBrah wrote: post #8
daviross wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Been working pretty well for me, and the code's been pretty straightforward. I mean, unless you have more substantive issues with it you can raise and substantiate, this reads as just static and noise, really.

The issue is that it works on the premise of guilt by association. It blocked an IGDA chairman FFS. The only thing it serves to do is filter out opinions you disagree with, which does nothing but harm anyone who cares to think outside their comfort zone.

Wait, first the problem is that it's poorly-made, then the problem is that it's really good at what it does (but it's supposedly bad at it), then the problem is that it was way too easy to make something that effective?

These all seem like mutually exclusive criticisms (still lacking in substantiation). Which one is it?

Also, even if you granted all of the above concerns, what business is it of anyone's if they choose not to have to listen to people? Right of association, and all. If it's really as damaging as you claim, either people will see that (and stop), or they won't.

p.s. 'hugbox' is a pretty amazingly offensive term, especially on a community site which has generally shown broad support for neuro-diversity, and I don't think it honors the community guideline to "Be civil".

Post reply on HN