The Inevitable Death of the Internet Troll 571
HughPickens.com writes James Swearingen writes at The Atlantic that the Internet can be a mean, hateful, and frightening place — especially for young women but human behavior and the limits placed on it by both law and society can change. In a Pew Research Center survey of 2,849 Internet users, one out of every four women between 18 years old and 24 years old reports having been stalked or sexually harassed online. "Like banner ads and spam bots, online harassment is still routinely treated as part of the landscape of being online," writes Swearingen adding that "we are in the early days of online harassment being taken as a serious problem, and not simply a quirk of online life." Law professor Danielle Citron draws a parallel between how sexual harassment was treated in the workplace decades ago and our current standard. "Think about in the 1960s and 1970s, what we said to women in the workplace," says Citron. "'This is just flirting.' That a sexually hostile environment was just a perk for men to enjoy, it's just what the environment is like. If you don't like it, leave and get a new job." It took years of activism, court cases, and Title VII protection to change that. "Here we are today, and sexual harassment in the workplace is not normal," said Citron. "Our norms and how we understand it are different now."
According to Swearingen, the likely solution to internet trolls will be a combination of things. The expansion of laws like the one currently on the books in California, which expands what constitutes online harassment, could help put the pressure on harassers. The upcoming Supreme Court case, Elonis v. The United States, looks to test the limits of free speech versus threatening comments on Facebook. "Can a combination of legal action, market pressure, and societal taboo work together to curb harassment?" asks Swearingen. "Too many people do too much online for things to stay the way they are."
According to Swearingen, the likely solution to internet trolls will be a combination of things. The expansion of laws like the one currently on the books in California, which expands what constitutes online harassment, could help put the pressure on harassers. The upcoming Supreme Court case, Elonis v. The United States, looks to test the limits of free speech versus threatening comments on Facebook. "Can a combination of legal action, market pressure, and societal taboo work together to curb harassment?" asks Swearingen. "Too many people do too much online for things to stay the way they are."
No chance (Score:5, Funny)
Every year a new generation of kids come on line, fueled with anonymity and alcohol, people post stuff they wouldn't say to someone's face. So fuck off the lot of you!
Use Dilbert's tutorial on dealing with harrassment (Score:5, Funny)
Yesterday's and today's comics on Dilbert show the proper response to sexual harassment.
dilbert.com/2014-10-22/ [dilbert.com]
dilbert.com/2014-10-23/ [dilbert.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-1 SHITCOCK
OB. PA (Score:3)
http://penny-arcade.com/comic/... [penny-arcade.com]
Re:No chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No chance (Score:5, Insightful)
queue the tumblrina's with "just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's not real"
Which is false, that's exactly what it means. A random internet meanie saying something that bothers you is kind of like letting a barking dog hurt your feelings. =/
Re: (Score:3)
Generally speaking, hurt feelings strike a nerve. Barking dogs don't strike a nerve, therefore don't hurt feelings. However trolls telling tramps that they are sluts hits a nerve. Hell, even my using those terms will get me in trouble because they elicit a certain negative connotation on the female gender (and done to illustrate a point). If a girl is secure in their sexuality, then no hurt feelings, but if a girl is not comfortable with their sexuality hurt feelings ensue.
Just to make it clear, I don't car
Re: (Score:3)
Thoughtcrime?
Re:No chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh, so you're saying trollish threats of violence, of various levels of credibility (ostensibly up to, and including rape) somehow justify incarcerating someone, resulting in actual rape? That's a really skewed viewpoint.
The problem with what you're saying though is, if someone makes a death threat such as "i'm coming to your home at $street to kill you", that's *already* illegal. Just because the method of conveyance is over the internet, doesn't make it unique or novel.
Re:No chance (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is that the word "troll" has subtly shifted in meaning. When I was first on the Internet in the early 1990s, it was basically online assholes who would make rude comments, try to start flamewars and the like. I don't remember anyone who actually made threats against other people being referred to as "trolls". Back then being abusive like that could get you kicked off of mailing lists, sent you into-moderation hell on moderated newsgroups, and possibly even having your newsfeed terminated by your provider.
This new definition of "troll" is very recent; Twitter-age nomenclature.
Re:No chance (Score:5, Informative)
Hear, hear.
Trolling is obnoxious, and different forums can have different ways of dealing with it - and there are and should be forums where it's just ignored and tolerated. (Because dealing with idiots is part of free and open communications. And going into walled gardens to get away from idiots is always an option.)
Stalking, harassment and threats are a bit more than that, and confusing the two does a disservice to both - but more importantly, to all of us.
Re: (Score:3)
you forgot, it would also get you win-nuked.
see you back in 10 minutes when you reboot and get the connection back.
Automated hate? (Score:2)
What about automated hate? Bots that sends hateful messages directed to all different types and groups of people? Would the bot-maker be liable for online harassment then?
Re:Automated hate? (Score:5, Funny)
No, the bot should be liable: we need to re-instate trials and executions against non-humans again.
>Judge: "This computer have been found guilty of indiscriminate hatred against millions of people and shall be hanged by the FSB until dead! Do you have any last words?"
>[microsoft sam tts]: You can kill my Process, but you can't kill my open-sourced code!
>Digital rights activist: "FSB Hanging is cruel and unsual punishment! at least we could use the more humane option of SQL injections!"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Automated hate? (Score:4, Informative)
The First Amendment to the US Constitution is designed to keep the government from censoring unpopular speech. It's not because it's a slippery slope. It's because free speech is the underpinning of democracy, and allowing a democratically-elected government to limit it allows the government to alter the basis of its own existence. In essence, the threat is that corrupt politicians would alter the balance of power in their own favor.
With that as the basis of our right to free speech, the government does still have the power to punish certain speech in very focused situations. For example, you will go to jail if you shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. That situation is limited to "causing immediate panic likely to result in injury to others", and with that limitation the law does not infringe upon our right to express our opinions.
Harassment is not expressing an opinion, it's expressing that you're an asshole. If speech were expressed with paint on canvas, harassment would be throwing the paint in someone else's face. The only way that the right to free speech protects assholes is that it forces prosecutors to prove they are really just being assholes. That's a good thing; there's a difference between throwing paint and painting a picture with it, even if the picture is on someone else's face. But that doesn't mean that shouting "SHITCOCK!" just to piss people off is somehow protected.
Re: (Score:3)
Your analogy is bad (obligatory "and you should feel bad", but not really).
If speech were expressed with paint on canvas, cruel speech would be painting goatse or the like.
Harassment would be following someone around with your painting of goatse. Or any painting of anything they object to. It's the "following them around" part that makes it harassing.
The verbal analogue of throwing paint on someone would be yelling at them through a megaphone set at painfully high volume.
Every instance of speech is also an
Re: (Score:3)
When the first amendment was written there was no instantaneous, virtually anonymous worldwide communication network. Now there is. Stop believing an 18th century document can apply to the 21st.
Who gives a shit? You're a fucking retard if you think the age of a law or a new invention changes the merit of the law.
Death? (Score:5, Informative)
Judging by this summary, the trolls are alive and well, I'd say.
Re:Death? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I read a subject line about the death of trolls and I got a summary about feminism.
What the fuck? Anyone would think only females are ever victims of trolling going by this summary.
Re: (Score:3)
If you think men are equally good at it, you've never seen teenage girls. Holy shit, the cruelest guys I ever met in high school (and we had a few beat-you-until-you're-bloody-and-leave-you-under-a-bridge class acts) weren't one tenth as cruel as *dozens* of the girls. They organized a campaign against this one girl so vicious and drawn-out that she tried to kill herself. Eventually her parents put her in a different school a half hour away, and this clique was thrilled that they'd "won". Even after she'd l
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Death? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not the problem. The problem is that the subject paints this article as an article about the death of trolling, but what it's really talking about is misogyny which is only an absolutely tiny fragment of online trolling.
Hence, if what the author is talking about comes true, the death of misogyny online, then it will not in any way even be close to the death of the internet trolling because every other type of trolling will still be present.
Thus this story deserves a big slapping down, it's purposefully misleading about a large widespread issue to push a much more focussed agenda than that it's dressed itself up as. People only do that when they don't have an argument that stands by itself, they only sensationalise when they don't have much to say about the actual specific point they're talking about, but perhaps most importantly, it's fucking offensive to the victims of every other type of trolling out there which can be equally as serious - it says "Hey, you guys aren't victims of real trolling because you're not female, or not victims of misogyny, that's the only real trolling"- tell that to the kid bullied to suicide for being overweight, being poor, having no friends or whatever else. It happens.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It reminds me of when I used to watch my neighbors kids. They would fight over a toy. I would walk over slap both of them on the backs of the head (because they were usually punching each other). Take away whatever toy they were fighting over. Then tell them *MY* side is not going to put up with this crap and shut the hell up and dont move from those corners for at least an hour. Most clickbait stories want 2 sides. But there is usually a 3rd side. The wtf is wrong with both of you. I feel this mass
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...about the only thing that is worse than the SJW brigade is people who feel uncomfortable when they see people fighting and tell them both to stop as if everyone involved in anything resembling a fight are equally to blame for it. It's a damned arrogant attitude that you being annoyed by something is more important than whatever people might be fighting over.
Being attacked? Better not try to resist, lest some dick shows up and punishes you for "fighting" because he's annoyed by the noise.
In a written foru
Re: (Score:3)
GamerGate will never be covered "fairly" because it's not in the interest of anyone with a soapbox tall enough to do so.
Journalistic integrity is a fat fucking joke, and probably always has been. We've been buying the lie for decades because, surprise surprise, the people who benefit from that notion are in the perfect position to broadcast it to the entire world. They've got it great, so no one wants to risk exposing an ugly truth just because a few individuals weren't discreet enough about collecting thei
Not just women (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Men just ignore it or feed the trolls.
Fixed that for you.
Re:Not just women (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two types of trolls. One type (let's call this the Classic Troll) gets their jollies by upsetting people. So if you respond to the troll's inflammatory remarks, they like it and will keep it up. If you ignore the Classic Troll, they will slink away to try to rile someone else up.
The second type (Targeted Troll) doesn't care about upsetting people as much as they care about targeting a specific person or group. If you're part of the group they are targeting and they latch on to you, they may or may not let go if you ignore them. If you're the specific person they are targeting, then they WON'T stop merely because they are ignored. They will keep ramping up the remarks until a response is obtained.
The big problem with Targeted Trolls is that they don't tend to be solitary creatures like the Classic Troll. While they will act alone, they can also get together with other Targeted Trolls to harass the person/people who have entered their cross-hairs. This amplifies the harassment and can make it impossible for them to be ignored. (For example, if one of them tracks down the victim's home address and posts it with a threatening message.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Women generally are the ones who get offended and emotional about this stuff, and therefore are much easier and more exciting targrta.
Ignoring the sexist nature of your comment for a moment, do you think we should simply stop trying to protect anyone from harassment and bullying because clearly it's their own fault for being sensitive to their disability/skin colour/nationality/etc? You are just blaming the victim here.
The bully will move on to someone weaker and raiser to get a rise out of.
Right, problem solved, or at least pushed on to to the next victim.
Re:Not just women (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"Here are some easy steps to avoid nasty trolls" is not victim blaming.
How about "Here are some easy steps to avoid nasty KKK"?
So, since we're onto the KKK discussion, I'm curious? While I despise them, I also am very much against banning free speech, and the idea of "hate crimes" still seems silly to me...something is a crime or it's not, we can't legislate hate IMO.
If the KKK wants to hold a parade down mainstreet, spewing their hatred, should it be illegal, and why? Opposing views would be welcome, as long as nobody was in-sighting a riot.
I see this as very similar to the whole online harassment issue, but with much more poten
Re:Not just women (Score:5, Insightful)
you think we should simply stop trying to protect anyone from harassment and bullying because clearly it's their own fault for being sensitive
When the "offended" person is a self-righteous Western middle-class person with an entitlement complex? You betcha. You have it better than 99% of people who have ever lived - stop looking for reasons to be offended, and start realizing how wonderful things are for you.
The Nobel Peace Prize* was just awarded to a genuine warrior for social justice. Want to be a real SJW? Go someplace where it's illegal to teach girls to read, and get shot at for trying. Want to complain on the internet about your hurt feelings because someone on the internet offended you? Don't be too surprised when people tell you to be less sensitive. And go donate to Room to Read [roomtoread.org], to help those actually making a difference in social justice.
*A dubious prize in many years, but for once I'm quite impressed by their choice.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're not going in harm's way, you shouldn't call yourself a "warrior" of any kind. Malala Yousafzai got shot for daring to advocate that girls should be taught to read. The Canadian parliament attracted a shooter for giving her Canadian citizenship (or so it's presumed -the timing suggests it strongly).
Internet death threats from pathetic losers just aren't the same thing as taking on the Taliban. The risk may be non-0, but iit's problebly lower than the risk of driving to the event.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What a nice demonstration of exactly what the article summary suggests. All your arguments are practically identical to the excuses that use to be given for work-place sexual harassment. Silly emotional women just take it all too seriously!
Except for an additional illogical twist; if trolls find it easiest to troll females (and your stereotyping of both genders is simplistic to say the least) , and are therefore subsequently chosen as a target, then trolls do indeed care about the gender of their target
Re: (Score:3)
Semantics (Score:4, Interesting)
The definition of harassment, at least where I live, is "unwanted sexual advances", meaning the distinction between flirting and harassment is purely based on subjective experience. Good luck trying to find a girlfriend without "harassing" anyone!
Re:Semantics (Score:4, Informative)
The definition of harassment, at least where I live, is "unwanted sexual advances", meaning the distinction between flirting and harassment is purely based on subjective experience. Good luck trying to find a girlfriend without "harassing" anyone!
Here's a hint: don't do it at work. Definitely don't do it at work if you are in a position of authority over the recipient.
See? It wasn't that hard, was it?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you seriously claiming that there's no way to show your interest in somebody without your approach qualifying as harassment?
Of course there is. Come on. Showing your interest starts with things such as eye contact, smiling at somebody, stuff like that. And if there's no response, move on. If there is, talk to her. It's not easy for us geeks, I know, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. :)
Good luck. :)
Re: (Score:3)
Just remember to:
1) Be handsome.
2) Be attractive.
3) Don't be unattractive.
This PSA should help. [liveleak.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So the GP missed the key point there, which is that it has to be both unwelcome and troublesome. Merely flirting or asking someone out is fine, it's only once it starts causing them trouble (like being very persistent when she has clearly rebuffed you) that it turns into sexual harassment.
Re:Semantics (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you missed the point that the "victim" defines both of those conditions subjectively.
With normal, socially-well-adjusted folks, that doesn't really present a problem. At the one extreme, however, we have the chronic harasser who really sees nothing wrong with friendly backrubs at work; at the other, we have "professional victims" who get to ruin as many lives in their wake as they want. Both of those extremes make such definitions unworkable in any fair and objective system of justice.
it's only once it starts causing them trouble (like being very persistent when she has clearly rebuffed you) that it turns into sexual harassment.
The fact that you needed to clarify the meaning of "troublesome", as you interpret it, nicely illustrates the real problem here.
Re:Semantics (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
That's mostly the one I work with.
Mostly, because there are exceptions. Guys who come up behind me, hug me and grab my breast? I put them in a joint lock right off.* Maybe it's the difference between harassment and assault.
* Though a male friend opines that if they did that to a guy, he'd most likely slug them in the jaw, so a joint lock that's only really painful if you're stupid enough to fight it while I explain that you don't touch me without asking first** might really count as one free try.
** Though I
Re:Semantics (Score:4, Insightful)
By the time you get to "police", the accused has already lost his (or her) job, because employers hate dealing with shit like this but can't risk looking soft on harassment.
So as I said, wake of ruined lives while the Violets struggle to figure out why every man they meet runs screaming from them as a sign of unwanted affection.
Re:Semantics (Score:4, Insightful)
Did I say anything about ignoring it?
The great-most-parent of this thread wrote:
You responded to a clarification that referenced a specific country's (Norway's) wording, to claim that one of two equally subjective words ("troublesome") made it just peachy that we had a victim-subjective law.
I disagree with your assertion. That doesn't mean I approve of sexual harassment in the workplace; rather, that if we want people to take it seriously, we need to come up with a reasonably objective metric that doesn't reduce to "don't behave in a way that might offend the most fragile person around you, oh and BTW you won't that threshold until you've crossed it".
As for whether or not people really think like that - I have seriously gotten into arguments with SJWs over whether or not merely complimenting (once, politely and legitimately, not talking about catcalls and shouting "nice tits" at every woman walking by) a stranger in a public place counts as "harassment", only to endure a subsequent rant of "imagine if you had to put up with that everywhere you went, no matter what you did, whether you wanted it or not". Hmm. Yeah, people complimenting me too often, you poor, poor thing! Consider me properly chastised, yup.
Re: (Score:3)
And - don't forget - people ripped her company a new asshole for daring to fire her, whereas the blowback to the company that fired the guy was negligible. Despite the fact that she was clearly, unambiguously, and disgustingly in the wrong. I'm sorry, but overhearing some private conversation does not give someone the right to chime in - or take a picture to shame publicly. And "sexual" is not "sexist", and she was so caught up in her own narrative that she misinterpreted innocent talk about wanting to "for
Re: (Score:2)
You've made two incorrect assumptions here:
1: That the translation to "troublesome" is correct.
2: That words mean the same in different languages.
1: The word translates better to "bothersome".
2: There is no implication of causing actual trouble in the Norwegian word no matter which English word you translate it to. Discomfort qualifies. So does repeat of an unsolicited action or statement, even if all it does is wasting a fraction of a second of someone's time.
Re:Semantics (Score:4, Insightful)
A jury?
Re: (Score:3)
I definitely want random people to subjectively decide that something is subjectively offensive. Unrelated, but obscenity laws are excellent too.
Re:Semantics (Score:4, Insightful)
Google Translate should not be used for translations. It's a good tool to bypass IP/country restrictions, though...
Try:
"By sexual harassment, [the law] means unwanted sexual attention which is bothersome for the recipient of the attention"
The problem with this definition, as earlier said, is that it hits way outside its intended target - flirting ends up as collateral damage. Any attempt to establish whether such attention would be welcome or not will risk being classified as sexual harassment.
Which might help explain why ethnic Norwegians have one of the lowest procreation rates in the world.
Re: Semantics (Score:5, Insightful)
GP poster did not say anything about restricting how women are allowed to dress. He spoke about looking at women.
How about this: women (and men) get to wear whatever they like. And men (and women) are allowed to look at each other (in public, not talking about peeping toms here) as much as they like. It's your body, you get to put what you want on it. They're my eyeballs, I get to point them whatever direction I want. Autonomy and agency for all, hurrah.
If you think that the way a random woman is dressing in public means she wants to have sex with you, you're an idiot. If you think the way a random man is pointing his eyeballs in public means he wants to rape you, you're an idiot.
Re: Semantics (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
What if it's swearing that makes someone uncomfortable? What if their idea of swearing and yours differ significantly? I received detention in school for using the words "pissed off" and "damn it" on seperate occasions both in a humorous context, but apparently my teachers were offended. The solution you imply is not workable because everyone has different opinions and thresholds of what is acceptable behaviour. The best we can really hope for is to enact and enforce laws that the majority can accept, and t
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the dirty little secret conveniently glossed over in this "discussion". Sure, if there is some obsessive tit-starer that person needs to be told off, but dressing to draw attention and then being selective about who is allowed to project attention is just a mean power-move designed to dominate people. Or in other words, this is open aggression which has not place in civilized society.
Re: (Score:3)
And you completely ignore his point because it hurts yours.
Which destroys your credibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Dog harrassment numbers? (Score:5, Insightful)
According to PA's Greater Internet Fuckward Theory (GIFT), it is gender-neutral and widespread. It is unfortunate, but that is the only way it could exists and still allow unauthenticated participation. To me, this unauthenticated quality that allows anonymity is a lot more valuable than eliminating GIFT asshatery.
Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets censor and police the internet not because of bomb and drugmaking tutorials and terrorism forums.
Lets do it because someone might insult females online.
Every single person that have spent any extended time online in an environment where you communicate anonymously with strangers have been insulted, harassed and so on. It happens because you eventually end up in a competitive situation(games or arguments).
But of course when xXxPonyWarrior2002xXx calls me a 'shit-eathing motherfucking fag-whore' and wishes me death from cancer and fire simultaneously it's friendly banter between two men. But when he calls GamurGrrl99 a slut it's suddenly a confirmation that all men are misgyonistic pigs and that we can't have such a thing as a free internet anymore because it's full of heartless trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd say, get over yourselves. I just don't understand when the government decided it was part of its job to protect people from the real world. It's not like you're forced to join any particular online community. If I were harassed on slashdot to the point that I didn't like it, I could leave. If enough people left, the mods would have to police the site differently if they didn't want to lose all their users. It's up to each site to police itself. Some communities have basically no moderation. And that's f
Re: (Score:3)
frikken lazerz
Let's see what we can come up with of insults based on that name. Hmm ... Maybe that you're making light of the problem?
Human nature (Score:3)
Can we first then agree one what exactly constitutes a troll?
I've seen a lot of news about trolls and trolling but it seems that it's rather loosely on an almost arbitrary basis. "Troll" has been used to described a stalker, an asshole, a person with an impolite opinion, a racist, sexist, bigot etc etc
From one online dictionary we can learn that "troll" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/troll?s=t) has nothing to do with online activity. Seems this word is now re purposed to what the urban dictionary has an entrie for: (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll)
"One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument."
Now by that definition which seems to be very much the case in many references is such a person deserving of punishment? prison? -our norms are dynamic. With enough trolls trolling will be the norm.
The article mentions human behaviour and I believe trolling is an aspect of bullying which is very much natural (although incorrect) and normal. I say this because it's a complete fallacy to tie "trolling" with stalking or sexual harassment.
We need some clarity on this rather than all this blanket FUD nonsense about trolling. When a person gets mouthy in real life he might get locked up for 24 hours for "disturbing the peace". This includes some pretty colourful language. If this is consistent against one specific person then that is harassment, there is a legal framework for this.
Has harassment stopped? bullying? -while not justifying it, I argue it never will cease because it's part of human nature.
Our only hope is to create a finer definition to stop this umbrella term which means different things to different people at different times without consistency; and furthermore we need a punishment befitting of the offence if there indeed was one at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we first then agree one what exactly constitutes a troll?
Probably not in the way you want to agree. It isn't possible to write down every specific behaviour and every possible situation that would be trolling. That's why we have courts to decide these things by evaluating the facts of each case, which tend to be somewhat unique.
I know that isn't very satisfactory, but that's the way the world is.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Human nature (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Human nature (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Holy fucking wrong (Score:5, Funny)
+1, Insightful. +1 for profuse swearing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No worries. I said PLUS one for profuse swearing. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent +1
There are already laws in place that deal with everything mentioned in TFA, and these laws work online as they do in the real world.
The online world does not need additional laws, rules or regulations that the real world does not.
Re: (Score:2)
In modern parlance a troll is someone who uses the remote and/or anonymous nature of the internet to harass others. The separation of the bully and the victim seems to cause much more prolonged or extreme harassment than would happen face to face in many cases.
The meaning of troll in common language has changed I'm afraid, just like hacker and gay did.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every troll dies, children. Not every troll truly (Score:2)
Every troll dies, children. Not every troll truly lives.
This article is a troll. Trolling will remain alive and well unless we ban it. But if we eliminate anonymous speech (as wags like David Brin suggest) then we will harm free speech. The only way to solve this problem utterly is to change the way we feel about women, and if that could happen overnight, it probably would have done so already.
Abstracting the unstoppable beast (Score:2)
The essence and intent of the internet troll cannot be stopped, it will only be abstracted into more subtle and passive aggressive manifestations. Akin to people who develop extremely bizarre fetishes (i.e. the very act of renting an adult movie rather than anything to do with watching the content it contains) restriction will only cause it to take a more vague and flowery form in the direction of innuendo hinting at the intended message. The internet is extremely good at "rooting around damage" as so many
What happens to the misunderstood? (Score:2)
I remember a friend of mine in the early 90s being fired and sued by his company for the fact that he was l
Respect in anonymity (Score:3, Interesting)
As the old saying goes "We exist without skin color, without nationality, without religious bias..."
But that's not true anymore is it? These "women" now exist on the internet, and as long as they keep trying to be "women" on the internet, people will call them out for it. People call "women" skanks because they fill their profiles with pictures of themselves looking like skanks. People harass "women" because they keep pointing out how unfairly they're being treated because they're "women".
There are now "women" in gaming, "women" in business, "women" fighting for "women" and more power to the "women". Why? If these "women" would just stop trying so damn hard, then there would be room for everyone.
But that'd mean having to compete with everyone else on equal terms, wouldn't it? The "women" wouldn't be able to rely on their pretty looks and the empowerment of other "women", and they'd receive no special attention from all the nerds on the internet. We'd all be equals, each anonymous entity carrying its own weight, relying on words to enforce their ideas. But we can't have that. Only "women" can be equal.
Re: (Score:3)
It's almost like they don't want a pure meritocracy?
The feminist movement is not about being treated as equals; it's about identifying a majority (seriously!) of the human population as "victims" in order to gain wealth and political power 'advocating' on their behalf.
This is really about controling the internet (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't about sexual harassment, but controlling the internet, and implicitly people in general. A lot of the powers that be have decided that, like other forms of media, they need to sanitize it in the name of control. (even with games, google gamergate) They want a name and an ID behind every post, they want to create "accountability". They gleefully ignore the fact that any woman, gay person, person of color, persecuted minority can take on an anon alias and argue their beliefs, do their work on merit alone. Seriously, how do we even know that Satoshi, the bitcoin creator, isn't a black lesbian? The internet frees productive people from race and gender in a way that before was never even remotely possible.
So maybe, just maybe, the people who want to make it an issue now, are the doing it not because of some high morality, but because they are discovering they can't compete on merit. But the issue is way deeper that that. In today's world, a lot of media and games are controlled via copyright, but copyrights by their very nature require centralized control by those who control them to work. Yet the internet is doing just the opposite, it is moving into the direction of decentralized control, threatening a lot of people, who happen to have a lot of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no, sir. You are correct in implicitly stating that the internet would have to BE controlled in order for the death of trolls to occur. As many have previously ruminated, the very essence of anonymity grants trolls the ability to be trolls safely, and with no consequences. The article predicts the Inevitable Death of Trolls because the american society has already put to death similar grievances (or attempted to), such as sexual harassment in the workplace. However, the article does not theorize HOW
The troll is the canary in the coal mine (Score:5, Insightful)
He goes first, then follows the controversial poster, then follows the poster who says anything contrary, then goes the poster who doesn't toe the approved line.
Freedom of speech means tolerating some trolls. Better that than to lose that freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
> Freedom of speech means tolerating some trolls. Better that than to lose that freedom.
Indeed. This same concept is called Blackstone Formulation [wikipedia.org] in Justice.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",
The internet is for porn. (Score:2)
If you don't like it, leave and get a new internet.
So troll is the new hacker? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wasn't troll supposed to mean someone that writes controversial or inflamatory things (even if they don't really believe them) just to get other people debating (fighting) about it so they can sit back and watch the fireworks. Now it's cyber bullies and people who harass women online. It sounds like the old/new definitions of hacker. This new English, it changes faster than Double Talk!
Never meta man I didn't like (Score:2)
"Can a combination of legal action, market pressure, and societal taboo work together to curb harassment?"
Evidently, all systems of moderation and meta-moderation by users have proven ineffective. But the frequent scoldings we see here evidently show promise.
Men are the victims (Score:5, Informative)
According to the actual study [pewinternet.org], men are the most common victims of trolls. Only if you restrict yourself to looking at sexual harassment, are women more likely to be targeted, and only by a small margin (3%).
"Social justice warriors" are the ultimate trolls. (Score:5, Insightful)
When looking at the big picture, the people who bring the most hostility to online communities aren't the traditional trolls. These people may "shitpost" and may engage in petty arguments or name-calling, but they're rather harmless.
It's the so-called "social justice warriors" who are far more harmful in practice. While trolls do what they do "for the lulz", the "social justice warriors" actually take what they do seriously. They are oblivious to the damage they cause to online communities.
The "social justice warriors" don't just post comments, like traditional trolls do. "Social justice warriors" do everything they can to actively censor anyone they choose to target. They attack, and attack, and attack some more.
"Social justice warriors" create the most toxic, awful, hostile communities around. Just look at Reddit, or even Hacker News. It's common to see the vile, repulsive harassment of people there who don't happen to hold the opinions that have been deemed to be "correct" by the "social justice warriors". Those places are much worse than, say, Slashdot, which has a much more balanced and fair moderation system that isn't as open to the abuse that the "social justice warriors" prefer to engage in.
Re:"Social justice warriors" are the ultimate trol (Score:5, Interesting)
"Social justice warriors" do everything they can to actively censor anyone they choose to target. They attack, and attack, and attack some more.
I remember reading a little while back that the YouTube "Star Wars Kid" had become a lawyer and was working for some sort of culture ministry in Quebec. I thought "Good for him! He made it through a negative part of his life and now he's doing some good in the world!" But then a Canadian responded to the story and pointed out that "language and culture" in Quebec has a much more ominous meaning than it does in most other places. Essentially, this kid was purportedly working, not to promote arts & culture, but as a legal bully for some Quebec nationalist/separatist types who want to harass anyone not putting their signs in only French and to threaten anyone who didn't put "French culture" ahead of English culture.
That was sad to me. It seemed that the bullied had become the bully. Sometimes you can think you're doing something good. But even if you are pursuing a noble cause at first, you can cross over a line to the point where you start seeing your critics as evil and wanting to silence them by force. When you cross that line, you're no longer pursing a noble cause. Any merit in your cause goes out the window the second you decide to impose it at sword-point. At that point, you're just another asshole in a power struggle.
SJW's may think they're doing good. But to me they're just another bunch of assholes in a power struggle. And I would much rather live in a world where there are some internet trolls than a world where I have to walk on eggshells on the internet and watch everything I say, lest I be booted off for inadvertently offending some new group of victims that I wasn't even aware existed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You missed a critical point (Score:5, Interesting)
When you want a particular solution, you continue to claim a problem exists over and over and over again until people believe it and demand the solution you want to provide. Hegalian dialectic 101, and in this case they (the State and the cronies putting people into offices) want Internet Censorship.
In fact the Government owns their own Troll armies, provides them play books, and pays them YOUR money (collected in taxes) to Troll. If we know that the US and UK Governments are doing this, we should assume that other Governments are doing the same. We also know that large corporations have hired trolls, and paid them to troll as well. What is constantly overlooked in discussions of "Trolling" is whether or not a Government/Corporate paid troll campaign is involved. It's a fair question, but our state controlled media does not ask the question.
In no way is this an attempt to claim that shitty people don't exist. The issue is, that the shitty people are not the majority and a good number of shitty people happen to be in the Government. "SJW"s are often co-opted by the Government (see COINTELPRO/Mocking Bird), and the Dunning-Kruger effect means that many of these SJWs are unwittingly behaving as agent provocateurs.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the trolls go away, there's nothing for the SJW's to defend, and they go away as well.
History teaches us that it is not so. When all the important topics are exhausted, the standard is elevated and previously petty points are blown out of proportions.
Re:"Social justice warriors" are the ultimate trol (Score:4, Interesting)
You can ask that, but you won't get a sensible answer. What will happen instead is that they pick some other part of your post, only respond to that, and call you a misogynist, racist, or some other name. Or they'll give a generic like "When full equality has been achieved and women aren't harassed anymore. Are you opposed to equal treatment and ending harassment? Why do you hate women?" You can't even win if you are a member of the minority they are pretending to help; they'll just say "The reason you disagree with me is because society has treated you so badly that you have internalized all this self-hatred, so in addition to suffering over harm, you have clearly also suffered psychological harm."
You need to recognize that these people have spent their whole lives on honing their propaganda and debating skills; that's what political science and social science majors do. They plan strategy, they have entire books about how to raise an issue, discredit opponents, and get things done. They know every single point and strategy you might use and how to respond to it most effectively. They don't have to be logical or truthful, they just have to score debating points. And that's all it takes for them to succeed in politics and get lots of donations to their causes. And money and power is what this ultimately about: this is how they make a living and succeed.
These people are professionals. As a technology person, you have about as much chance of success against them as challenging a heavyweight champion to a boxing match.
Re: (Score:3)
The OP has a point, unfortunately.
Modern feminism lacks a common goal like the earlier waves did. There are so many dissenting opinions all under the umbrella of feminism, many (most?) of which are not about getting equality.
I'm all for equality and fairness, but I've become very wary of 'feminism', or at least what it has mutated into.
Not a feminist issue. (Score:3)
Among the healthy and mature, there's no right "not to be offended"; not for men, and not for women. There is 100% equality here.
Such offense is subjective; every possible attempt to minimize it by law boils down to an unworthy suppression of freedom, something that is unhealthy for society no matter how you go about it.
Even when a particular mode of speech, or some consensual/personal action, is pretty much uniformly despised, it's far better to know who says, and therefore has motivation to say, or does,
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, anyone who says "treat women like people" gets labelled an SJW. The term is meaningless, saying "SJW" is about as irrelevant's and Rush's "feminazi", in that it riles up the haters but makes everyone else roll their eyes.
Except that (Score:3)
What you claim happens is absolutely false. People are not simply claiming that women should be treated like people, they are claiming that:
* Women get treated worse than everyone else on the Internet
Therefor the solution is to censor the Internet.
Due to societal pressures there is no way to prove such a claim, and it's completely not relevant to the solution. Censoring the internet would not prevent shitty people from doing shitty things. If that was true, we would have no crime in any country where
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Women: A ridiculous liberal myth
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that an enire gender seprate from male exists, is ludicrous...
Sadly I don't really have the time to do justice to such a classic troll.