from the out-of-the-abundance-of-the-heart-the-mouth-speaketh dept.
Online Trolls Also Jerks in Real Life: Aarhus University Study:
The internet doesn't turn people into assholes so much as it acts as a massive megaphone for existing ones, according to work by researchers at Aarhus University.
[...] the researchers used representative surveys and behavioral studies from the U.S. and Denmark to establish the reason why people broadly perceive the online environment as more hostile than offline interaction. A pre-print version of the article is available here.
The team considered the mismatch hypothesis, which in the context of online behavior refers to the theory that there is a conflict between human adaptation for face-to-face interpersonal interaction and the newer, impersonal online environment. That hypothesis more or less amounts to the idea that humans who would be nicer to each other in person might feel more inclined to get nasty when interacting with other pseudonymous internet users. The researchers found little evidence for that.
Instead, their data pointed to online interactions largely mirroring offline behavior, with people predisposed to aggressive, status-seeking behavior just as unpleasant in person as behind a veil of online anonymity, and choosing to be jerks as part of a deliberate strategy rather than as a consequence of the format involved. They also found some evidence that less hostile people simply aren't as interested in talking about politics on the internet. These results were similar in both the U.S. and Denmark, even though the two countries have very different political cultures with differing levels of polarization. [...]
"We found that people are not more hostile online than offline; that hostile individuals do not preferentially select into online (vs. offline) political discussions; and that people do not over-perceive hostility in online messages," the researchers wrote. "We did find some evidence for another selection effect: Non-hostile individuals select out from all, hostile as well as non-hostile, online political discussions."
Alexander Bor, a post-doc at the Aarhus University Political Science Department and co-author of the study, told Engineering & Technology there are "many psychological reasons" to get angry online, including that users "do not see the faces of those we are arguing with and the fast-paced written form of communication can easily lead to misunderstandings."
"Yet, we also know from psychological research that not everyone has a personality that is equally disposed to aggression," Bor told the site. "In the end, these personality differences turn out to be a much stronger driver of online hostility."
[...] Bor told Engineering & Technology that the results supported stricter enforcement of rules against hate speech, as it is "not born out of ignorance" and aggressive people are fully aware of how disruptive and harmful their actions are. "This is a democratic problem, given that social media plays a larger and larger role in political processes," he added.
Journal Reference:
Alexander Bor, Michael Bang Petersen. The Psychology of Online Political Hostility: A Comprehensive, Cross-National Test of the Mismatch Hypothesis, American Political Science Review (DOI: 10.1017/S0003055421000885)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @01:15AM (7 children)
They must have used aristarchus the puppetmaster for a test subject.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @02:00AM (4 children)
Oh yeah! What's Hazu, chopped liver?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @02:03AM (2 children)
No, but she'll happily chop your liver, along with other body parts, before she burns them.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 30 2021, @05:19AM (1 child)
Leave me out of your gornographic fantasies you freak.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @11:26PM
Who's the freak? You're the one who brought up having sex with Japanese sci-fi monsters.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday August 30 2021, @06:30PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Disagree) by aristarchus on Monday August 30 2021, @05:46AM (1 child)
I assure you, I am quite polite and genteel in real life, something of a gentleman, a scholar, and a bon vivant. As some have pointed out, it is only the nastiness of some that brings out the stern side of us gentle persons.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @09:52PM
Mercy, not yet full growed, and that chi'le already crazy, boop-shooby.
(Score: 4, Informative) by drussell on Monday August 30 2021, @01:16AM (7 children)
Jerks will just be jerks, offline or on...
Who would have thought?
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @01:23AM
Grant money does not stink.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by HiThere on Monday August 30 2021, @02:57AM (3 children)
My suspicion is that in physical life being obnoxious has more direct negative consequences than on-line, so on-line that behavior isn't as strongly suppressed. Actually, that's a pretty strong suspicion. So it's not so much that it acts as a megaphone, though it does, as that they don't experience an equal increase in negative consequences.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @06:33AM (2 children)
Yup, it's called a punch to the face (or a swift kick in the balls from a girl). Tends to sort the fuckers out real quick.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @06:57AM
I'm pretty sure the people using violence are almost always the bigger asshole.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Monday August 30 2021, @07:54AM
Just learn to run faster, most of the people who'd want to kick you suffer from two things, slow wits and bad physique.
Survival of the fittest... literally.
(Score: 4, Informative) by driverless on Monday August 30 2021, @12:58PM (1 child)
And thus the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [wikimedia.org] is empirically proven.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @03:42PM
You could at least have linked to a more original source.
https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 [penny-arcade.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @01:26AM (10 children)
That's going to need more investigation.
/My/ online Trolling is a response to idiots trying to lecture-down at me.
I pretty-much can't visit Reddit any more if I want to have a productive day..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @03:20AM (9 children)
Slight suggestion: visit Reddit, but don't comment on anything. :-)
On the green site, I use Stylus (or similar plugin..) to hide the Reply link. It's just so tempting to provide a little context or extra information. Usually I'm just wasting my time: a comment with a table in it is rejected by the "Looks like ascii art" filter, another comment in the same topic is rejected, "Commenting too fast (wait > 15 minutes)" etc. It's just not worth the waste of time, so I stopped completely.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @06:54AM (8 children)
So.... you see a post on Reddit from someone seriously suggesting that Smartphone ownership become mandatory, and the camera being used to detect if the user is running a fever, high pulse-rate, etc. And it's getting a serious upvote from other under-18s who've no knowledge of a certain book with a number for a title.
What do you do?
You have: 30+ years of Usenet flaming experience...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Opportunist on Monday August 30 2021, @07:29AM (5 children)
You realize that whatever you write would only be read by mouthbreathers with an IQ below room temperature.
Then you realize that you shouldn't try to teach nuclear physics to pigs. It wastes your time and irritates the pigs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @08:52AM (4 children)
Er, people with an IQ below 21? (Celcius, obviously.) I wouldn't have thought they could even read.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @09:47AM
No, I believe he's talking about 300K
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Monday August 30 2021, @03:34PM (1 child)
I will venture to guess he is referring to the Fahrenheit scale, which would be around 70 degrees for room temp. Not a great number for an IQ, but enough to function somewhat in society.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Mykl on Monday August 30 2021, @10:44PM
But then you need to take another 10 off for still using Fahrenheit
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @09:00PM
Is it hot in here, or is it just me?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @11:31AM (1 child)
If you have 30+ years of usenet experience, then you'd recognize HYBT HAND and you would act accordingly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @07:32PM
Oops, "YHBT", not "HYBT".
Stupid dylsexia
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Barenflimski on Monday August 30 2021, @01:28AM (1 child)
So... Lets see. To figure out if someone else is a jerk, you have to be one that is turned off by that persons behavior.
I would posit that what is most likely is that the researchers that think that people are jerks online, also think that their offline behavior is jerky too.
I'd love to know how old these researchers are, cuz when you grow up, you realize that everyone can be a jerk sometimes.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @02:54AM
It is much more complicated than that. Even the jerks almost unanimously self-identified as jerks and said their own activities would be interpreted that way. In addition, the vast majority of said jerks stated that they acted that way on purpose rather than from an inability to control themselves. Whether or not the researchers did or didn't like the behavior doesn't really matter when the subjects are identifying their own behavior as bad.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @01:29AM (9 children)
Mini poll to see if this result replicates.
Reply while signed in, whether or not people say you are a jerk IRL.
We already know how you are online.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 30 2021, @02:00AM (8 children)
No, people don't call me a jerk. They are far more likely to call me an asshole. I was often called a 'perfect asshole' when I was younger. Today, it's more likely to be "old asshole'. I would prefer that people gave me my proper title, that being 'asocial asshole', but you can't have everything your way.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: -1, Troll) by NPC-131072 on Monday August 30 2021, @02:09AM (3 children)
Those of us on the morally and intellectually superior left do not have this problem. Ask Azuma, and you will burn in hell. You asshole!
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 30 2021, @02:38AM (2 children)
What's the matter, NPC-$BIGNUM? Forgot yer asbestos jim-jams?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by NPC-131072 on Monday August 30 2021, @03:17AM
Easy there, I still get night terrors. You should be gentle when you tuck me in at night.
(Score: 3, Funny) by maxwell demon on Monday August 30 2021, @08:23AM
$BIGNUM? That's just 217. Are you still using a 16 bit computer? ;-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @04:37AM (2 children)
Asshole with sockpuppets. Old asshole with sockpuppets. Perfect old asshole with sockpuppets. You do not get to chose your title, Runaway, it choses you! Now sockpuppet off with you, perfect old asshole of sockpuppets!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 30 2021, @05:12AM (1 child)
Let us pretend that you know what you are talking about. Let us pretend, for the sake of argument, that I have 20 or 50 sock puppets. Why on earth would I create a bunch of puppets? You might refer back to one of Janrinok's posts. (It's up to you to identify and find that post - or not.) He speculated that some random non-liberal might have been targeted by a sock army for mod bombing, and that said non-liberal might have retaliated in kind, thereby exposing that preexisting sock army. Janrinok didn't mention who that non-liberal person might be though. But, you are free to speculate that I am that individual. You are just as free to jam an extra-large SpecuLume where the sun don't shine. (Don't know what that is? Duck it!) Better yet, Super Size yourself.
Incidentally, we don't need to speculate about who the liberal sock army commander might be - he has publicly confessed elsewhere.
Have a nice day now!
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @05:51AM
Poor Runaway! Nobody likes him, and this is not Gab, so he attributes his stupidity to sockpuppets? All your downmodders have been modbanned for months, you frothing idiot! All the downmods you get now are only the ones the admins cannot protect you from. And I predict they will continue, as long as you are an asshole. I suspect you still are running your sockpuppet mod-farm, under FatPhil's and janrinok's protection. Makes SN a more interesting place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @11:32PM
I think if you ran a wordfreq on the responses to your posts, you'd find the most common epithet would be "idiot."
Idiot.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by HammeredGlass on Monday August 30 2021, @01:40AM (20 children)
Weaklings were given an easy access to the internet and then ruined it with their soft skin.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @02:09AM (3 children)
Internet was for information exchange. Exchanging insults in its stead is the damn Eternal September.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Opportunist on Monday August 30 2021, @08:01AM (2 children)
Erh... no. Sorry, but no. The exchange of insults and the art of flaming is way, way older than the Eternal September. The Usenet was filled with mighty threads of artful trolling long before the dimwits arrived.
The difference is that we duked it out, with words and witty ripostes. You could actually gain some status by having a witty response to whatever trolling comment, which quickly meant that nobody wanted to engage with you in a battle of wits because they felt outgunned.
The difference to the Eternal September trolls was that when you reposted, their reaction was not to try to outwit you but to go "Waaaah, he hit me back! MOMMY!!! He's evil, go and punish him, admin!"
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @11:35AM
Ah, those were the days. Even (and perhaps particularly) some of the "giants" of computer operating systems and languages would get out their flamethrowers and have at it. And the trolling could be very clever. Someone would get into an apoplectic fit over a clever troll post and all the reply would be (as I reminded an AC above) was YHBT HAND.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday August 31 2021, @04:36AM
And dialup BBSs could make Usenet look positively tepid.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 30 2021, @02:41AM (15 children)
All true, but we'll let you stay anyway if you promise to harden the hell up a bit... :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by HammeredGlass on Monday August 30 2021, @12:23PM (14 children)
GTFO with this accepting bullshit. Your low grade sarcasm doesn't hide that you actually think this either.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 30 2021, @04:52PM (4 children)
Someone sounds triggered. The internet's a rough place, not suitable for someone made of glass, hammered or otherwise. You sure can dish it out but you can't take it...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Redundant) by HammeredGlass on Monday August 30 2021, @07:07PM (3 children)
Okie dokie, smokie. Whatever you say.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 30 2021, @07:25PM (2 children)
Case in point :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Redundant) by HammeredGlass on Monday August 30 2021, @10:27PM (1 child)
Yes, flippant dismissal is being "triggered"
Ya got me!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @11:38PM
And with a colon-dee on the end of it, that makes it seem more and more like Kommie Harris' mindless cackle, instead of a mindless bot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @05:49PM (8 children)
"Weaklings were given an easy access to the internet and then ruined it with their soft skin."
Umm wow, high grade sociopath material!
"All true."
But hey, Azuma agrees with you. Wouldn't put a little sociopathy beyond her, but if she is she at least reigns it in to society's accepted boundaries.
"GTFO with this accepting bullshit. Your low grade sarcasm doesn't hide that you actually think this either."
Did you not read her agreement? Do you not like that people will accept you even when they don't like you? Does that make your hate filled existence upset because your "enemy" is able to be a better person?
As a human turd with an AOC foot fetish likes to say, "curious."
(Score: 2) by HammeredGlass on Monday August 30 2021, @07:24PM (7 children)
"Umm wow, high grade sociopath material!"
*functional sociopath
Thank you.
"reigns it in to society's accepted boundaries."
Fuck your overton window controls.
"Do you not like that people will accept you even when they don't like you?"
Oh yes, disingenuous holier than thou attitudes are very heartwarming.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 30 2021, @07:28PM (1 child)
When you're in a hole, *stop digging.* All you're doing is making it blatantly obvious how thin-skinned and weakminded you are.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @08:40PM
You don't seem oh-so-very-smart, when you don't have all your piffling posts up-modded +5 Insightful by the peanut gallery. It's like losing your entourage, and now nobody thinks you're witty.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @08:02PM (4 children)
All humans have negative thoughts, most learn to not share their more anti-social thoughts. I've been annoyed and angered by comments on here, to the point of wanting to say bad things. Knowing the baoundaries of civil society and how a random internet person may be going through tough times I stop myself from saying much beyond basic insults. Everyone makes their own choices, and you've chosen to display a sociopathic disregard for others, and as is typical you're also a narcissist that whines when people criticize you. AKA a Republican.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by HammeredGlass on Monday August 30 2021, @10:02PM (3 children)
"random internet person may be going through tough times"
cry more
"a narcissist that whines when people criticize you"
me: "GTFO with this accepting bullshit."
In what world is smacking someone's cheap sarcastic compassion away from them a form of whining!?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 31 2021, @08:09AM (2 children)
Sociopath response detected. You are like a fish that can't see its bowl.
(Score: 1) by HammeredGlass on Tuesday August 31 2021, @11:53AM (1 child)
Why the fuck do you think I care?!
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 31 2021, @06:45PM
You don't care? What a sociopath ;-)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by optotronic on Monday August 30 2021, @01:43AM (41 children)
It seems reasonable (to me) to try to make it harder for people to intentionally harm others (even mentally or emotionally). I assume most Americans would be against rules against hate speech (first amendment and all) but of course the first amendment doesn't guarantee an audience. On the other hand, as far as I know there are no laws against web sites (or other media) removing or refusing to publish hate speech, so, it can be suppressed, but only after publication or during review before publication, which is rare on web sites.
Would a law prohibiting hate speech or trolling make a difference? How about requiring a working unique email address for all posters? The latter would still allow anonymous posting, but it would be a little harder, presumably improving behavior somewhat.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Monday August 30 2021, @01:48AM (31 children)
Sure, it would increase the legal latitude for government to monkey with your speech and other freedoms.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @02:03AM
Racist!
(Score: 2) by optotronic on Monday August 30 2021, @02:06AM (28 children)
I could have been clearer. Would a law prohibiting hate speech or trolling reduce hate speech or trolling? Or would the trolls just figure out how to avoid the letter of the law or the rulings of the courts?
We seem to be able to restrict assault without too much disagreement on what assault is, but physical contact is vastly easier to define than potentially emotionally harming speech. The harm cannot be solely defined by the victim.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @02:16AM
No, it merely gives the government troll agencies monopoly on using those to drown out any opposition. See Russia and China for working examples.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @02:26AM
I'm sure that any speech the judge finds distateful will be punished.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @03:03AM (1 child)
You essentially answered your own question: it's very difficult to define. People here get "troll" downmods just for expressing an opinion, not even attacking or insulting anyone else. I looked up the definition of "troll", and it's a bit vague, but it does not mean: "something I disagree with".
It might just piss them off even more.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday August 30 2021, @04:05PM
I remember insisting to my parents during a parent/teacher conference that my teacher just hates me.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Tangaroa on Monday August 30 2021, @04:16AM (10 children)
They hired the trolls to enforce the laws. Goon Swarm, Bantown, and GNAA are all used by the feds to enforce European hate speech laws by disrupting and taking down any online communities that the government doesn't control the moderation of. The trolls trolled a lot of people out of their jobs by saying something abhorrently racist or sexist, waiting for a reply in kind, and sending it to their employer with "do you really want this person representing your company?" The trolls themselves are never banned because they are government agents or they run the site.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday August 30 2021, @12:49PM (9 children)
And you can provide evidence to back these claims up? Or is it just some imaginary threat that you feel is being waged against you because not everybody agrees with what you say?
How much were they paid , how many of them were there? How do you have access to this information?
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 30 2021, @01:36PM
[*] Well I was autopiloting ** an Amarrian shuttle through 0.0 so maybe I kinda deserved that one.
[**] Someone else got my autopiloted capsule. They were sleeping on the job! Clearly troll enforcement took precedent over important matters!
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @05:53PM (7 children)
Wow, guilty conscience much? Khallow with the assist!
So I'm taking these replies are overly reactionary responses to someone discussing the idea of online shill agitators. I saw no accusation of SN doing so, yet janrinnok who usually avoids all such discussions, hops in with preloaded offense? Looks like SN stewards are in more trouble than we thought. Can't wait for the next database "bug" to wipe this discussion clean.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday August 30 2021, @07:20PM (6 children)
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @08:06PM (5 children)
No, you should be concerned for your own conduct. There was no trolling, just calling out suspicious activity from SN staff. Don't like it? Quit! Or you know, actually deal with community problems instead of playing Grand Inquisitor when it suits you.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday August 31 2021, @06:45AM (4 children)
No, it is trolling. And you have chosen not to use one of your several usernames but are posting as AC. The evidence that you seem to seek can only be shown if we abuse the privacy of those who have posted as AC in the past and prevent future posting by ACs. We have no intention of taking such action. We have not revealed the identity of anybody involved - but one or our community has chosen to do that himself.
You also seem to have misunderstood. The action to limit the abuses by several sock puppets was because they were clearly engaged in an war of attrition to the extent that it was preventing the freedom of speech that we all value. It was giving each group of accounts and sock puppets 40 moderation points a day which gave them an unfair moderation advantage. It wasn't an action taken solely by me but by the administration of the site. I was simply the person attempting to explain on here why it was necessary to the one person who outed himself. Since we took action all significant moderation abuse has ceased. Those concerned may wish that they had been treated differently but it has achieved the desired result.
Which problems are you referring to? Or is it that you simply wish to be able to choose the problems that we action so that we do not affect your personal usage of the site?
I feel no guilt at all in this matter. However, this discussion does not belong in this thread and, should you wish to continue it, I would ask you to return to https://soylentnews.org/~Eratosthenes/ [soylentnews.org]
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 31 2021, @08:16AM (3 children)
Well, at least I've got my answers. Admins are paranoid and incompetent. I've only used one account, and it has nothing to do with aristarchus. Nice to have your assurances that sock puppets are dealt with, but I doubt it.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday August 31 2021, @09:17AM (2 children)
Interesting then that, on multiple connections, you appear to be sharing it with 3 others who are well known to this community. I did not say that your account is associated with Aristarchus.
If this is a genuine problem then please contact me by email and I can look into resolving the issue. In the meantime, to avoid any future misunderstandings you can either log in or change your routing using a VPN or TOR.
We have not dealt with ALL sock puppets and it would be foolish to claim otherwise. But where we detect sock puppets being used on the site in future, particular to conduct moderation abuse, we will take action. This was explained in Martyb's Meta post [soylentnews.org].
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 31 2021, @06:53PM (1 child)
This is the only account I use because the troll that made it gave it away. Posting as AC per my stated policy of avoiding namespace collisions. My point is that you are making false connections, and possibly false accusations. It doesn't much bother me, but this has shown that your data is quite suspect. I've got no problem with you going after sock puppets, but with the variety of community issues we've got going on I think SN needs to work on transparency and building community support more than swinging the ban hammer. I've made suggestions before, you should really run some weekly/monthly polls to generate discussions on what changes would help.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday September 01 2021, @04:39AM
You will be aware that the only action that we have taken has been based on moderation abuse. While I understand your concerns regarding false connections that is simply irrelevant to moderation - one has to be logged in to moderate. There can be no confusion regarding who is moderating whom. Once someone has logged in then everything they do using that connection at that time is attributable to them. Even if there were collisions within the same hash, that fact is evident. We can then disregard that connection. If someone who has logged in makes a mistake by assuming (s)he is anonymous. even temporarily, we can exploit that mistake. You will be surprised at how frequently that actually happens.
It was the community that was demanding action against the moderation abusers. We have only banned 2 groups of abusers although there are undoubtedly more. All significant moderation abuse has now stopped. We are being entirely transparent regarding what we are doing, but intentionally not divulging personal information so that it does not lead to revenge moderation by those who incorrectly perceive themselves to have been subjected to unfair moderation.
You may want to rethink that idea. You are carrying a lot of bad reputation based solely on who you appear to be. However, you should now also be aware that we have only taken action against those who were currently abusing the moderation system, and not those who have done so historically.
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Monday August 30 2021, @05:34AM (11 children)
Perhaps, but my answer wouldn't have changed.
The power of the law would be in the variety of speech that it could reduce. I would unconditionally oppose any such law because it would prohibit a lot more than just hate speech and trolling of such. Meanwhile, the people actually committing hate speech have yet another data point supporting their worldview - that the state considers them such a threat that it's willing to pass laws. The next step is enforcing those laws. I think it would be educational to consider historical examples of hate speech law and how it failed (such as the failure of hate speech laws in the Wiemar Republic to keep the Nazis' hate speech out of public view).
Ill-defined stuff is the meat and drink of tyrants. Who knows what it'll take for the secret police to haul you off? You won't know until it happens.
Also, it amazes me how so much of law is primitive reasoning of the form, "X is bad, so we need to ban X" without regard to how other peoples' opinions on the matter or even if X really is bad. If we entertain these inclinations, we'll just end up with a huge mass of bad law that only the law abiding have to respect.
(Score: 2) by optotronic on Monday August 30 2021, @05:18PM (10 children)
Your thoughts are interesting. Why don't you argue that people should be allowed to legally assault each other, since not all assault causes permanent damage (or whatever reasoning)? Maybe it's the "ill-defined stuff" argument, which has merit. Who would decide what's legally allowed? How much is someone allowed to maim someone else?
However, "free speech" in America is already limited. You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater and get away without responsibility from the ensuing mayhem. Harmful lies about another person are libel and can be punished in civil court.
Some of our (America's) government's purposes are stated in the Constitution: "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare". When people intentionally lie to others in a way that causes harm (intentionally or not), it surely reduces tranquility and reduces general welfare.
Making well-balanced, beneficial laws is hard. To suggest that refusing to try is the only solution is at least as naive as believing we can convince people to be more civil to each other.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 30 2021, @07:51PM (7 children)
Indeed. After all saying mean things on the internet is just the same as assaulting people in the streets.
Similarly, your freedom from assault is limited by such things as self-defense. Thus, why not limit those rights a little further?
Indeed. For example, when you slander the Dear Leader by accusing him of mass murder and callous disregard for human life, and are subsequently executed along with a thousand other newly appointed rebels we round up for the occasion, we'll reflect on how convenient it is that we're the ones who get to decide what is true and false.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @09:11PM
It's not his fault! He was taking a nap at the time.
(Score: 2) by optotronic on Tuesday August 31 2021, @12:17AM (5 children)
Of course not, and you appear to know I wasn't implying that. I was perhaps extrapolating on TFA towards all speech, not just internet trolling, as the article compared the usage of rudeness in real life to that on the internet. However, people can be harmed both emotionally and physically. I just learned that emotional abuse can lead to criminal charges in California, although there is no law specifically against emotional abuse:
https://www.southerncaliforniadefenseblog.com/2018/10/can-i-be-charged-with-a-crime-for-emotional-abuse.html [southerncaliforniadefenseblog.com]
I'm not complaining about limits to assault. I wondered whether people who appear to believe that speech should never be infringed were upset that the couldn't legally physically harm people.
It's apparent that we both agree that laws restricting speech need to be very carefully considered.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday August 31 2021, @03:45AM (4 children)
Yet you made that facile comparison.
Technically, I was repeating your argument, but in an even more perverse direction. Consider the argument again:
Why did you bring up the argument that there are limits to a right while talking about imposing more limits on that right? The problem here is that existing limits on a right never justify further limits on the right, just like I can't justify claiming that your right to not be assaulted should be taken away because there are already limits on your right to not be assaulted.
In addition to the two problems I noted above, there are two more problems of note.
Unless, of course, it doesn't cause that harm. Intangible, grossly exaggerated harm is one of the most ridiculous excuses for misdeeds around. I have read about many genocides in detail. Every one of them was rationalized on the basis that the victims were causing an even more serious harm! This is demonization and a standard behavioral tactic for committing great evil - the victims are rationalized as deserving what they had coming. It should not be in your reasoning because of the sanction it provides for all sorts of evil and irrationality!
When trying means extremely bad and unjust law (which I believe invariably the case here), then yes, refusing to try is the only good solution.
(Score: 2) by optotronic on Tuesday August 31 2021, @01:28PM (3 children)
Because some people (not you) appear to believe that any and all limits to a right are wrong and unjustified.
Absolutely, and that's valuable to emphasize.
I don't dispute that, but I'm not convinced that harm doesn't exist because it isn't visible on the skin or through an x-ray or other current medical scan. Conversely, I don't automatically believe harm exists because someone says it does.
It seems like a stretch to suggest that limiting hate speech leads to condoning capital punishment or genocide. However, I have not read about genocides in detail, like you.
If you're saying that speech, because it's used to communicate ideas, discuss politics, and consider changes in laws, is more important to be (mostly) unrestricted than other personal rights, then I get your point.
If your argument is against a law restricting speech, does that mean you don't object to encouraging civil speech through other means?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday August 31 2021, @02:40PM (2 children)
So what if that were true? It remains profoundly bad reasoning because you never give a positive reason why we need more limits.
Here's my take. Nobody has shown that banning hate speech works, much less that it addresses a real problem. We've be better off just telling the victims of hate speech to go fuck off, than we would coming up with a slew of restrictions (because actual practitioners of hate speech will just work around and through those laws in a variety of creative ways, requiring more and more ineffective laws).
As I've noted before, don't punish the speech, punish the commission of actual crimes. If someone is spraying swastikas on cemetery stones, then that's vandalism, a real crime. If someone beats up someone for being the wrong type of person, that's assault, a real felony. And frankly, that assault is no different than all the other stupid reasons for beating up innocent people - thus, no need for considering it an aggravating circumstance. If someone storms the Capitol because hate, then that's a variety of crimes, such as "parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol Building", assault, etc.
We've solved the problem already. We don't need bad law that won't fix the problem and just creates new avenues for government-side oppression.
(Score: 2) by optotronic on Wednesday September 01 2021, @12:18AM (1 child)
Because, regardless of the topic of discussion, the real world isn't black and white and someone who only believes in black and white isn't someone worth conversing with.
That depends on the definition of the problem. If the problem is a lack of civility, then I disagree.
I'm against bad laws and government oppression, too.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 01 2021, @01:04AM
It's not black and white to just not do known bad ideas and policies.
Creating law just to solve some lack of civility is doing it wrong.
And yet here you are talking about black and white, and civility. That tells me you aren't against the related bad laws and government oppression. Law is not the only tool in our tool box. It's time to use those other tools.
The fundamental problem here is that freedom is freedom to be a jerk. And some people will exercise that freedom. The solution is to accept that some people will be jerks and deal with it, rather than talk about laws that can't do anything about the problem except make it work.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday August 30 2021, @11:01PM (1 child)
We do allow legal assault. See: BDSM, Boxing, games of hand slaps. There are exceptions for it, same as free speech.
Having said all of that, I do support 'consequences' for free speech, and agree that we need to enforce the laws that already exist for the exceptions such as incitement, libel etc.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday August 31 2021, @04:12AM
How about exceptions like speaking truth to a tyrant? The problem with emphasizing the "consequences" over the free speech is that you're enabling the sorts of tyranny that have existed for millennia. The powerful have long created brutal consequences for those protesting evil and injustice. The whole point of free speech is to change that.
Even stuff like incitement and libel can be deliberately and falsely misapplied in order to suppress another's speech. We need more than enforcement of these laws. We also need enforcement of laws against the abuses of these laws.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Opportunist on Monday August 30 2021, @08:04AM
I think the trolls would just figure out how to pervert the law into working for them and use it to silence those that dare to hit them back.
For reference, see Reddit.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday August 30 2021, @01:51PM
What are these freedoms that you speak of?
The server will be down for replacement of vacuum tubes, belts, worn parts and lubrication of gears and bearings.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by EJ on Monday August 30 2021, @02:50AM (3 children)
Imagine that anti-religious speech was defined as hate-speech by such laws.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday August 30 2021, @03:09PM (1 child)
Yes, and thus the censors are hoisted on their own petard, eh? It's such a great idea until their own decide it is now the censors' speech that is dangerous and must be punished.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 30 2021, @06:38PM
You poor persecuted minority. Maybe someday we'll have a Christian president. Or, you know, 44 of them in a row, then a break, then the 46th. Get off the fuckin' cross, you're too swell-headed to be crucified.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday August 31 2021, @05:17AM
There is a vast swath of the globe where this is functionally the case, and where you can be executed for anti-religious speech.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by HammeredGlass on Monday August 30 2021, @12:25PM (1 child)
You're a tyrant.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @08:50PM
You say that like it's a bad thing. You know, most tyrants are proud of their accomplishments.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday August 30 2021, @03:03PM (2 children)
It seems that current generations have been too far removed from real conflict to understand when Churchill said, "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." Maybe experiencing war-war is required for them to lose their fear of mean words and wrongthink. But conversely, of course, they all should understand that if they disallow the "jaw-jaw" then they will absolutely get "war-war."
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday August 30 2021, @06:40PM
Put your rusty rifle and your rusty gun (first one's not shooting, second one's not fun) away. You are the living example of that meme about Principal Skinner going "No...it's not me. It's the *children* who are wrong." Your entire worldview has been reduced to aggrieved whinging, "how DARE those minorities not worship me, tolerant as I've been to them!"
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @08:53PM
As recent previews have demonstrated, we're going to have our asses handed to us in a jar-jar.