The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative • Hacker News Board

Re: The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative

#21

Post by KVFinn » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 6:17 AM UTC

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.

>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.

For me it's simply a matter of making twitter usable.

I wasn't aware this existed and never had the slightest need, but following GDC on twitter this year was a spam fest without it.

Re: The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative

#22

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 8:03 AM UTC

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

#23

Post by eevee » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 8:37 AM UTC

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.

If you can offer me a more effective GamerGate blocklist, I'll gladly switch to it. Or if you could make GamerGate stop being so repulsive, that would be even better.

Why are you criticizing a solution to a problem you don't have without offering an alternative? It's almost like you don't care about the problem or the people it impacts at all.

Re: The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative

#24

Post by freebsdgirl » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 9:06 AM UTC

hyugh wrote: post #16

NahBrah wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed. I would think a hastily coded perl script written in a fog of tequila being so effective is a pretty good vote in my favor.

I mean, imagine what I can do with gin.

Re: The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative

#25

Post by freebsdgirl » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 9:12 AM UTC

swatow wrote: post #5

The problem with abuse is that it is an ambiguous term. For example suppose I were to criticize Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian. And suppose other people read my criticism, and decided to make nuisance phone calls, or even more severe forms of harassments. Was my original criticism harassment? Because that is how the GamerGate movement has been characterized. Since some people allegedly engaged in things that were clea…

GamerGate is not interesting beyond the fact that it's made abuse a topic of conversation, and that the rate of engagement is high enough to provide a steady stream of abuse for analysis.

They are not the real issue, but a symptom of a larger problem.

We've also been very, very careful to not give any specifics about what we've been doing, yet. You're jumping the gun when you don't even know what this is about, but given that Zoe and I are involved, I can't say that it's surprising.

Re: The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative

#26

Post by breadbox » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 7:14 PM UTC

freebsdgirl wrote: post #24

hyugh wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed. I would think a hastily coded perl script written in a fog of tequila being so effective is a pretty good vote in my favor. I mean, imagine what I can do with gin.

Say the word and I'll postmates a bottle of Bombay Sapphire to your office.

Re: The Online Abuse Prevention Initiative

#27

Post by swatow » Thu, Mar 05, 2015, 7:32 PM UTC

GamerGirl wrote: post #17

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 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 f…

Would a campaign to get someone fired because they held progressive political views, be considered harassment or abuse?