Trouble at the Koolaid Point • Hacker News Board

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#141

Post by protonfish » Wed, Oct 08, 2014, 2:30 PM UTC

olefoo wrote: post #5

After reading this, I'm battling the urge to suggest technical solutions to social problems. Except that in this case the social problems are caused by the fact the internet is a house built on sand and the underlying protocols don't support authentication or accountability to anything like the degree traditional public conversations did. That said, the choices that were made in the 1980's and early '90s to support p…

I think there are technical solutions to this problem (though nothing that has to do with protocols and authentication) that are very similar to the ones encountered when people were moving from small villages to cities. People seem to be able to behave in a civil and constructive manner in a group at or below Dunbar's number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number For cities to form, the technology that needed to be invented were laws and a justice system to enforce them.

The logical requirements for reciprocal altruism are: 1. Others are recognizable 2. You can remember their past behavior 3. There is a reasonable chance of interacting with them again. It is this simple game-theory situation that we have to reckon with and the Internet gives us much more elegant and humane tools than Hammurabi had. Remember when comments were ordered by submission date? The difference between that pointless cesspool of idiocy (FRIST!) and the acceptable level of comments ordered by upvotes is striking. If such a simple change in UI can cause a significant increase in the quality of community discussion, there must be many other techniques to make online communication more civilized yet to be discovered. Unfortunately, they are not easily tested because it requires a large, active community and time.

I am doubtful that more moderation is the answer. If the problem is people behaving poorly, giving some people more power does not sound like a solution - just a different problem.

Millions (or billions?) of racist, sexist, cruel and sadistic people exist. This is not a problem with the Internet. It is a problem with the world. If there are not laws enforced by traditional justice systems against stalking, harassment and threats, there probably should be. It shouldn't matter if it is done verbally, over the phone, through the mail, or online.

tl;dr The Internet did not create jerks, but it may have tools to handle them better.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#142

Post by zyx321 » Wed, Oct 08, 2014, 2:40 PM UTC

arrrg wrote: post #126

zyx321 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we please keep this us vs them bullshit off HN? The linked blog, whether you agree with it or not, keeps a reasonably neutral tone throughout (even if the author's frustration is obvious). Agreeing with it does not automatically make someone a misogynist, and criticizing a moderator does not automatically make someone an awful person.

Tone is no excuse and if you agree with awful stuff, well that’s on you. Communities wanting to keep such people out is an awesome policy.

It's not no much about tone as it is about making a genuine, intellectually honest argument without resorting to ad hominem insults.

Hell, one of the reasons I like coming to HN is precisely because the general consensus here is in many ways contrary to my political worldview.

But I digress. You've made it clear that you regard homogeneity of opinions (and possibly outright censorship) as a good thing, and I doubt I can change your mind. There is little reason for me to continue this conversation (besides maybe grinding for karma).

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#143

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Oct 08, 2014, 2:43 PM UTC

smoyer wrote: post #131

jmduke wrote: 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 o…

Great attitude. But I wonder if 'refuting trolls' is the same as feeding them. What else is there to try?

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#144

Post by unchocked » Wed, Oct 08, 2014, 2:50 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #143

smoyer wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Great attitude. But I wonder if 'refuting trolls' is the same as feeding them. What else is there to try?

Regardless of attitude, she is most definitely feeding the trolls.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#145

Post by steve-benjamins » Wed, Oct 08, 2014, 2:55 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #143

smoyer wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Great attitude. But I wonder if 'refuting trolls' is the same as feeding them. What else is there to try?

In any bullying, there are three players: the bully, the bullied and the witnesses.

People who are bullied will often internalize that they are worthless (and that's why they are bullied). That can be one of the hardest parts of being bullied.

This happens especially if people who witness the bullying stay silent. Than the bullied will feel even more alone (and will feel awful about how bad they feel).

But if witnesses stand up and say- "hey, bully: you're being an asshole", then that is a service to the bullied. The bullied will at least not feel so alone.

Hope that makes sense.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#146

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Oct 08, 2014, 3:11 PM UTC

steve-benjamins wrote: post #145

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great attitude. But I wonder if 'refuting trolls' is the same as feeding them. What else is there to try?

In any bullying, there are three players: the bully, the bullied and the witnesses. People who are bullied will often internalize that they are worthless (and that's why they are bullied). That can be one of the hardest parts of being bullied. This happens especially if people who witness the bullying stay silent. Than the bullied will feel even more alone (and will feel awful about how bad they feel). But if witness…

Or maybe ignore the troll, but reinforce the 'bullied' with "ignore that guy, they're being jerks". Less feeding, more refuting.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#147

Post by ijk » Wed, Oct 08, 2014, 3:25 PM UTC

Mithaldu wrote: post #113

zimpenfish wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I thought he was just a daft hacker caught by bad laws until I saw the article about his new swastika tattoo a couple of days ago. Between that and finally catching up on the finer details of 'gamergate', I'm thoroughly depressed about the state of the world.

What you're not aware of is that the dailystormer itself is very likely a trolling site in itself, aimed at creating ridiculous and believable content to draw in support by real white supremacists and enrage the unsuspecting public. It would make perfect sense for weev to go on there with a photo of him with fake tattoos to help them in their quest. That is how deep the rabbit hole goes. Also, since you mention gamer…

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

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#148

Post by pcunite » Wed, Oct 08, 2014, 3:34 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #143

smoyer wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Great attitude. But I wonder if 'refuting trolls' is the same as feeding them. What else is there to try?

I would say be careful to not be directed by the trolls. Real trolls are good at directing all of us to attack the innocent. Thus while you may feel like you are "stopping" someone, you may in fact be attacking the wrong target. Look at what happened with Reddit and the Boston Marathon Bomber.

Some trolls love to create these vortexes ... it was the end-game for them all along. So ... if the person being attacked is a public person, I would say tread lightly. If both are anonymous ... perhaps simply getting into thread "thought defense" is not wise and should be avoided?

There are trolls on HN that have very high karma and yet are anonymous accounts. We (in the technical community) need to pause when we allow for that type of power that can be used against others.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#149

Post by waterlesscloud » Wed, Oct 08, 2014, 3:48 PM UTC

arrrg wrote: post #115

waterlesscloud wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't solve the problem, it just moves it to other venues.

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 acknowledging that the simple answers don't solve the worst aspects of the problem.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#150

Post by CanSpice » Wed, Oct 08, 2014, 3:52 PM UTC

deciplex wrote: post #9

jmduke wrote: 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…

>[^1]: I know, I peaked in like 2004. You joke (I think) but it's more like it went through a years-long period where it was really, really terrible. It's gotten better lately as far as I can tell. I'm posting there again after giving up on it years ago. But, they don't really have stringent moderation, I don't think. It's more that when they do moderate, it means something, because you can't just register another ac…

Yeah, I was surprised to see Something Awful listed as an example of a place that does well. Back in the day (early 2000s) it was, like you said, really really terrible. When I think of "for the lulz" I think of SA. Reddit seems to be at the same stage now that SA was back then. There's a lot of good, but there's also a lot of bad and the admins don't seem to care to get rid of the bad.

Of course, that was a decade ago. Maybe I should revisit it and see if my account's still there...