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

191–200 of 285 posts

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#191

Post by McDoku »

michaelt wrote: post #101
McDoku wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom of speech mean that these ideas can be challenged in the public sphere. Anything else is the department of arm chair theorist. Freedom ain't free. It calls for noble labour.

It calls for noble labour. I'm guessing, from your choice of words, that you've never tried to change public opinion in a forum like Reddit, Twitter, HN or 4chan?

The design here is flawed. It is insane to expect anything different then what it is. You can still hack it if you are inclined, but I agree the bias is not prosocial.

By labour, I mean grab a pen and paper and devise a method to fix the problem. If it is broke devise a method to fix it.

Noble labour takes resolve.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#192

Post by McDoku »

cmdkeen wrote: post #100
waterlesscloud wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's much harder to use Reddit to issue a death threat to someone when they don't use Reddit. Twitter especially is a tool for magnifying hate in a way that other venues just aren't. The article specifically mentions instances of weev's tweets appearing in her timeline due to retweets, Twitter suggesting she follow him.

Status is attention. If enough people stare at a fool he will be convinced he is king.

There are dollars in spectacle but in the end twitter, fb, reddit or HN are inferior tools because of this.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#193

Post by dllthomas »

jvanenk wrote: post #173
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You should really really REALLY read the article.

In what way does the parent comment indicate the author did not read the article? The article discusses options as a target of trolling, the parent seems directed at bystanders.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#194

Post by unchocked »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #172
unchocked wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Did you actually read the article? That's not feeding the trolls. That's, after six years of ignoring the trolls, deciding that it's gotten toxic enough that she needs to make a public refutation of weev's reality distortion field.

Aren't trolls getting lulz off of this? If so, they've been fed, regardless of whatever reasons it's so. Nobody feeds trolls to keep them fat and happy; people feed trolls because they are against trolling, so we have to remind them to stop because it's counterproductive.

I do think it's going to prove counterproductive for internet discourse as a whole.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#195

Post by JoeAltmaier »

jvanenk wrote: post #173
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You should really really REALLY read the article.

Right, thanks, way beyond normal sane responses required I see from the article. Well, maybe there's not been anything invented yet that will solve this problem.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#196

Post by jMyles »

pmjordan wrote: post #48
paddyoloughlin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read that differently from you. I think the author was simply pointing out that well-known people are well known, so their privacy is, almost by definition, limited anyway.

This handily ignores that doxxing is not some virtuous research and release of pure facts in the public interest. Its purpose is to turn lies about the victim into the publicly perceived truth (defamation) by mixing them with the weight of real facts. That people who have some level of public exposure (as you and I do, posting on a public forum) will have some personal information out in the open is obvious. The thre…

That's a cruel outlook and not at all what I meant. I think it's reasonable (and in fact an essential part of calling into question the norms of patriarchy) to point out that attack surfaces are real and they require scrutiny.

In this case, the one with which you seem to take issue OP's point #1, which I merely want to point out is a surface that is only available against people who haven't already dox'd themselves. And for those people - people who want to occupy a place on the anonymity spectrum that is far away from a "public figure," the threats to this attack surface are more damning than trolls - they include huge advertising corporations and the NSA.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#197

Post by gknoy »

dllthomas wrote: post #193
jvanenk wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should really really REALLY read the article.

In what way does the parent comment indicate the author did not read the article? The article discusses options as a target of trolling, the parent seems directed at bystanders.

The article specifically calls out the "ignore the trolling" tactic is specifically a losing one, as the trolls will simply turn up the volume / severity of abuse. Nearly the entire article elaborates on this theme -- that it's not something that can be ignored, nor fought easily, and that telling someone to "just ignore it" is not going to solve it.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#198

Post by dllthomas »

gknoy wrote: post #197
dllthomas wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way does the parent comment indicate the author did not read the article? The article discusses options as a target of trolling, the parent seems directed at bystanders.

The article specifically calls out the "ignore the trolling" tactic is specifically a losing one, as the trolls will simply turn up the volume / severity of abuse. Nearly the entire article elaborates on this theme -- that it's not something that can be ignored, nor fought easily, and that telling someone to "just ignore it" is not going to solve it.

Like I said, though, that is directed at troll targets, not bystanders. Further, "just ignore it" is an incorrect summary of what Joe suggested, which was "ignore it but support the victim". I don't know that this is the correct approach, but I know it's not what the article spoke to.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#199

Post by golemotron »

mononcqc wrote: post #177
golemotron wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know this is not a popular opinion, but is growing increasingly painful to visit a site that willingly allows to exist subreddits devoted towards domestic abuse and snuff. How do you feel about visiting a country that allows freedom of speech and association? I don't like many of the worst of the subreddits either, but allowing them is probably much better than forbidding them for the same reason that we allow su…

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?

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#200

Post by facepalm »

The typical mixing up of things that infuriates people. Yes, some people apparently are mean to women. But the conclusion can not be that women can never be criticized.

If she could separate one thing from the other, perhaps she would have an easier time online.

Post reply on HN