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

51–60 of 285 posts

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#51

Post by mkal_tsr »

pmjordan wrote: post #21
rjknight wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't see any victim-blaming in that post - the victim is obviously due our full sympathy in each and every case. The question is what to do about it. The OP suggests that we might be able to form better communities, suggesting that the existence of communities in which this kind of thing does not happen proves that it must be possible. The GP appears to disagree, believing that we need technical and legal solutio…

Victim blaming/"they deserve it": "For the most part, high-profile "targets" from the troll's perspective are already known to the public anyway."

It's not victim blaming to say, "this attack surface is larger than that attack surface." Shame on you.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#53

Post by paddyoloughlin »

[deleted] wrote: post #33
phpnode wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are firmly blaming the victim, that's why you are being downvoted. The answer to all this cannot be "there are assholes on the internet so don't go on the internet"

[deleted]

I am not a downvoter, but using your own analogy, your post is like saying "Why are people complaining about the existence of minefields?", criticising people for suggesting that something should be done about the minefields and ignoring the fact that the victims of minefields are mostly people who didn't know there was a minefield there.

Also, I think in plenty of these cases the victims are not going to the places where their attackers are. E.g. the victims of attacks organised at 4chan are not generally people who post on 4chan.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#54

Post by calibraxis »

verroq wrote: post #6
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…

>willingly allows to exist subreddits devoted towards domestic abuse and snuff Serious question: why does this even bother you?

Such questions are favored by Reddit trolls, because they take virtually no time to formulate, require no effort in self-education, and eat up other people's time.

Without rehashing the obvious problems of giving a platform to harassment, child porn, spam, etc, just read about how Reddit supported and profited off bros like Violentacrez. Just a little research shows these corporations intervene heavily — but in peculiar ways. http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the...

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#55

Post by iSnow »

kansface wrote: post #42
iherbig wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not who you asked, but if I may step in? It bothers me for the same reason it bothers me that those things exist. They are terrible, and should not be given a platform. I don't feel that we, as a society, should tolerate terrible things in general, much less let them prosper.

May I ask where you are from? Free speech - bigoted, hateful, maybe untrue, or otherwise, is perhaps the one enduring (sacred) tenet of American society.

Well, this right does not imply that everyone or even a certain service provider has to provide you a platform for it.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#57

Post by fleitz »

wtracy wrote: post #37

Is it known how doxers are able to get information like social security numbers? I can understand a determined party being able to find, say, your phone number and home address, but certain information just shouldn't be available to the public.

Social engineering an entity with the number...

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#58

Post by sooper »

[deleted] wrote: post #33
phpnode wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are firmly blaming the victim, that's why you are being downvoted. The answer to all this cannot be "there are assholes on the internet so don't go on the internet"

[deleted]

That seems like a strawman.

I would say that blogging on the internet is more like going out for a drink at the pub. You aim to meet and interact with many people with the same interests, have discussions, and enjoy a drink.

However, there is the possibility that someone may abuse this, maybe through drinking to excess and becoming argumentative. This, while annoying, can be accepted. However, if that person gets violent and causes harm, I believe that is unacceptable.

Re: Trouble at the Koolaid Point

#60

Post by paddyoloughlin »

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…

I agree with that and I'm not sure what that jMyles' point was there, but I still don't think he/she was victim blaming, but rather making some sort of observation about the nature of privacy and popularity.
Post reply on HN