Note: Comments are enabled for everyone including Anonymous Cowards and should be on-topic. However, if you abuse this privilege do not be surprised or complain if your comments are deleted.
This came to my attention on IRC; it was published yesterday. It should not surprise anyone, nor is it a unique occurrence. Most sites on the internet nowadays are suffering from the same problem. But I find it hard to understand how anyone can benefit from personal attacks, or by forcing sites to make unwanted decisions about how they operate.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/06/new-blog-moderation-policy.html
Schneier writes:
New Blog Moderation Policy
There has been a lot of toxicity in the comments section of this blog. Recently, we're having to delete more and more comments. Not just spam and off-topic comments, but also sniping and personal attacks. It's gotten so bad that I need to do something.
My options are limited because I'm just one person, and this website is free, ad-free, and anonymous. I pay for a part-time moderator out of pocket; he isn't able to constantly monitor comments. And I'm unwilling to require verified accounts.
So starting now, we will be pre-screening comments and letting through only those that 1) are on topic, 2) contribute to the discussion, and 3) don't attack or insult anyone. The standard is not going to be "well, I guess this doesn't technically quite break a rule," but "is this actually contributing."
Obviously, this is a subjective standard; sometimes good comments will accidentally get thrown out. And the delayed nature of the screening will result in less conversation and more disjointed comments. Those are costs, and they're significant ones. But something has to be done, and I would like to try this before turning off all comments.
In our own case it is rarely someone posting under his/her username that does similar things or at least not anyone who is logged in and posting anonymously. There are a few who push the boundaries from time to time but they usually do it without resorting to anonymity. It is almost without exception those who wish to remain Anonymous Cowards. Surely they realise that the eventual outcome will be to force sites to ban AC posting. How does that benefit any site or those ACs in particular? The end result will be that there will be fewer places where they are allowed to express themselves.
janrinok
(Score: 3, Insightful) by krishnoid on Friday June 21 2024, @01:22AM (5 children)
This is one of those things that seems to be glossed over in science fiction [xkcd.com], futurist, and general political discussions. Democratization of dialogue, increased by multiple orders of magnitude, starts to break down in unplanned ways. I suspect this is the collision of technological enablement and social interaction, but that's just a guess.
I don't know if there's anything that describes or models this kind of interaction in the large-scale. It seems like we're experiencing it live on BBS's, facebook, twitter, et. al., and have to pick out patterns [youtube.com] as they emerge.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday June 21 2024, @12:38PM
Modded +1 just for the xkcd link :)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by quietus on Friday June 21 2024, @01:06PM (3 children)
You shouldn't be looking for models: just use your common sense.
One. Most of us live average lives, have an average number of friends (if any), think averagely, and have average achievements. Than you go onto social media, and see all these people enthusiastically living the Real Life, which is filled with exotic locations, exquisite food, happy-happy people and ice-cold daiquiris in exactly the right atmosphere. That inevitably leads to frustration which, being the social apes we are, we try to work away with fight (angry rants) or flight (playing some more in a fantasy world on the game console).
Two. A certain percentage of the population is altruistic. An even sized percentage of the population is its exact counterpart, and derives pleasure from destroying-and-annoying.
There. That's your model: no need for further explanation.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by krishnoid on Friday June 21 2024, @05:35PM (2 children)
I could never really connect with that. I look at that and think, "huh, these people are at least pretending to enjoy something they enjoy. Good for them! Better than the alternative of focusing on decocting and stewing in their own hatred." So I guess I'd have to rely on other peoples' common sense to come to the same conclusion.
(Score: 3, Funny) by quietus on Friday June 21 2024, @08:12PM (1 child)
I would love to give you a thumbs up, but as this isn't a social media site I cannot do that, and instead categorize you mentally as a glass-positively-more-than-half-full type of person.
Now, ... get off my lawn!!
(Score: 3, Informative) by hendrikboom on Saturday June 22 2024, @02:05AM
You can thumbs-up. That's what moderation is for.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by krishnoid on Friday June 21 2024, @02:02AM (6 children)
This fired off some neurons that made me think about griefers [youtu.be] in MMORPGs. Gaming deals with this in much greater volume and vitriol [theguardian.com], so I suspect it's a good source of the why and who this behavior comes from.
One could raise the bar for posting. Payment, or a short essay-type quiz to sign up for the site and/or post an anonymous comment. If it's important enough that the Internet needs to know [xkcd.com], I'd think that would at least reduce contributors who don't work with the rest of the group; consider the gauntlet that debian packages have to go through to prove that they can coexist with the core and other packages. Maybe AI can eventually analyze postings for ad hominem attacks; maybe you could even spend karma to push an ad hominem attack through if you feel it's warranted.
As to *why* some people behave in this way ... who knows [penny-arcade.com], really [youtu.be]? Maybe they're trying to get something else out of their system.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mhajicek on Friday June 21 2024, @03:21AM (5 children)
As with gaming griefers, don't assume that they're rational actors who receive a measurable benefit. In many cases I think they're just angry, bitter people, looking for a way to lash out. It may let them feel a modicum of power and control, in an otherwise helpless and subservient life.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2024, @07:04AM (4 children)
Guess what makes people angry and bitter!
Surprising no one, receiving abuse and unequal policing creates bitterness. It is hard for leaders to always know the correct response to every situation, but that does not absolve them of the responsibility. Keeping a population ignorant of management details breeds distrust. Your comment has some truth I'm sure, but misses a lot of important details with its broad brush.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 22 2024, @07:13AM (3 children)
Where is this happening? You know who is on the Board of this site. You know exactly what SoylentNews PBC is, when it was created, how it has developed. You know the members of staff who work here. Which particular 'management detail' do you need?
But you did not know any of that information in February 2014 - the business side didn't exist until September of that year. So what problem did that period present to you?
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2024, @07:29AM (2 children)
I do not care to rehash conversations with you then be blamed for repetitive material. I do not trust your judgment as you have proven incapable of acknowledging your own mistakes and biased enforcement, let alone those of past admins. The list you just gave is a prime example of your aggressively authoritative approach.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 22 2024, @08:26AM
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 23 2024, @05:51AM
Not the first time AC has posted and posted about the many, unmentionable reasons they can't argue in good faith. For a glaring example, what is this "list" of which you speak? is it:
If that list screams "aggressive authoritarian" to you (rest assured it doesn't to anyone else!) then maybe the internet isn't for you.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 21 2024, @02:16AM (18 children)
The damage is much worse than the toxicity you see in the comments.
Anonymity is a good thing because it allows people to test out ideas, get feedback about whether those ideas are good or bad, and avoid damaging their reputation in the process. When used properly, it's good for discourse and helps weed out bad ideas. The downside is that it's also prone to abuse.
It's easy to see some of the toxicity in the form of name-calling, personal attacks, going in circles about the same topic because one person is clearly wrong but can't admit it, spamming, and harassment. But there's a lot of damage you don't see.
I've done research in climatology. I've run climate models and weather models, which are their close cousins. I've taught college courses about climate and climate change. But I've learned that I dare not discuss this topic here, so I usually self-censor instead of trying to explain the scientific consensus on climate change. I know that when I post about it, I can expect the types of replies, things like accusing the researchers of misconduct, allegations that climate models are useless, that model data is fabricated and/or falsified, and a lot of other very repetitive arguments. All of those things are wrong, but it's just not worth the time to refute the same arguments from the same people over and over again. It's a lot of effort that could be better spent going into more depth about the science, discussing other interesting comments, or doing more productive things away from this site. I've learned that instead of sharing my experience and what I've learned as a researcher and educator, it's better to self-censor and avoid the hassle.
I'm sure there are many other people with similar experiences. It's one thing for someone to ask a question or disagree because they're honestly unaware of the facts. It happens, and the level of discourse can be improved when people have a better understanding of the ideas they're discussing. But there's a big difference between that and the type of trolling that some topics inevitably invite. When you read the comments, you have no way of seeing that people are self-censoring. But the most destructive effect might be when the people who have the most knowledge and experience to contribute choose to remain silent, because there might not be anyone else who can step up with the same understanding of the topic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 21 2024, @02:42AM (15 children)
"Anonymity is a good thing because it allows people to test out ideas, get feedback about whether those ideas are good or bad, and avoid damaging their reputation in the process."
Not sure it has ever been used that way here, and the whole point of the karma system gets broken by anonymous comments. Nothing stops someone from making a second account for their questionable commentary.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 21 2024, @02:55AM (4 children)
> Not sure it has ever been used that way here
I use it that way frequently, posting on topics I'm not all that familiar with to see what sorts of reactions are generated. Since my AC posts are only rarely modded way down, it seems like I'm adding something useful(??)
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday June 21 2024, @12:40PM
I also use it that way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 21 2024, @02:49PM (1 child)
Then why post AC? People should not down mod mild ignorance, and how a user reacts to feedback is a part of the karma system. Perhaps if there was a negative karma hit for an AC comment that might limit abuse, but then a user account would be required even for AC commemts.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 21 2024, @07:16PM
> Then why post AC?
I notice that you posted the above as AC.
In my case it's simple embarrassment. I often feel like I chose a dumb user name--squandering my three digit SN ID number.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2024, @03:25PM
Yep. "What do these people think about this perspective?" is useful for everyone.
The querier gets to find out.
The queried get to explicitly consider their opinions and basis.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday June 21 2024, @03:22AM (5 children)
Well, nothing except that the second account is a sock-puppet - which IS against the rules. This is how many people try to game the system. They have multiple accounts which they use to moderate themselves positively, or use together to moderate another account negatively.
If you have an account then you can still post anonymously....
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Friday June 21 2024, @07:56AM (4 children)
Soylentnews.org - yet another site that doesn't accommodate users with split personality; so much for inclusiveness.
:very-large-grin:
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Funny) by janrinok on Friday June 21 2024, @08:32AM (3 children)
Our rules don't specifically forbid it, but I suspect that the provision of psychoanalysis and subsequent treatment by administrators would be frowned upon by some authority or other.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2024, @03:30PM (2 children)
Look, I believe you're joking, you are probably not trying to troll or be bigoted, so I'm going to respond in good faith. Ok?
So! Did you know that over 1% of Googlers consider themselves plural personalities?
Turns out it shows up a LOT in highly intelligent people with traumatic pasts.
Check out https://www.pluralpride.com/playbook [pluralpride.com] if you want to understand.
Most Plural folks are not out beyond very close friends, because there's a lot of stigma and very little value.
Now you know!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 22 2024, @04:04PM (1 child)
If you stop talking about it then nobody will know what sexuality you are, or which gender or pronouns you choose. We don't care. We don't want to know. We haven't asked you for that information. It is irrelevant to this thread.
Yes - I was responding to the joke by c0lo in the post before mine. If you jump in mid-thread you ought to read back a little to find out what has been said.
I think that I've worked out who you are now from a previous post some time back.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 23 2024, @03:49PM
"If you stop talking about it then nobody will know what sexuality you are, or which gender or pronouns you choose. We don't care."
So you were always an asshole. They have the right to their opinions and you should not be trying to restrict their freedom of speech.
"I think that I've worked out who you are now from a previous post some time back."
Da fuq is wrong with you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 21 2024, @06:42PM (3 children)
> Nothing stops someone from making a second account for their questionable commentary.
Nothing except the same things that stop a first account?
No! There's more, but if YOU can't think of the threat surface, that's YOUR ineptitude.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday June 21 2024, @07:05PM (2 children)
What is preventing you from creating the first account? We don't need to know who you are. You can use a secure email address but you will not be able to post anonymously until you have some karma. You do not need to provide any personal details.
Your comment does appear to be a bit aggressive, particularly for someone just swinging by.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2024, @03:38PM (1 child)
> What is preventing you from creating the first account? We don't need to know who you are. You can use a secure email address
Because then those posts are linked to each other beyond word choice, grammar, spelling. Which means expanding a threat surface. You live in a free speech society. In some societies, saying some things which you would consider fine opinions can lead to a literal death sentence.
> Your comment does appear to be a bit aggressive, particularly for someone just swinging by.
Yeah, true. I'm a bit bitter that I noticed this post, and remember that once I could participate here. It sucks to be told "sorry your kind is not welcome."
Can you imagine a person who is immune compromised trying to survive in today's world? That type of hard life - do you choose to be a hermit, or risk death from interactions? - can be due to other societal forces.
Use your imagination. You've read Sci Fi. Think about today's societies. What things are so normal in the USA and Europe, but illegal to say elsewhere?
Imagine for a moment someone in Mainland China who posts a link to Tank Man, and is critical of CCP. Do you think doing that with a re-used account is safe? What if, just one time, the person screws up and logs into SN from an endpoint that is logging? No amount of SSL or lack of server-side logs will help. And then that person logs into the same account another day from another place, and then a year later a third place, and a week after the third login, someone knocks at the door, because cellphone records match up.
Just imagine living under repression. Why would you risk life and freedom to chat on a board?
But it was nice to have the freedom to talk here when it was safer. Thus bitterness now.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 22 2024, @03:57PM
People have been scraping web sites since web sites first appeared. If you can see it on your screen then you have the same data as everyone else. What people do with it is not under our control.
But there are numerous commentators on this site that many people recognise as soon as they start reading. It isn't something that requires specialist software, it is something that we can all do to some extent or other.
You are as welcome today as you have always been. The security situation here has not changed in 10 years. If somebody provides a demand supported by a correctly authorised warrant then we have to hand over all of the data - but not before!
No, I wouldn't. But I wouldn't go on the internet complaining about my situation either. You are chatting on a board now - are you risking life and freedom?
It is just as safe on this site today as it has always been. Feel free to chat anytime you wish. Stay safe!
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mhajicek on Friday June 21 2024, @03:27AM (1 child)
For every rabid flamebait denier post you see, I'm sure there are a dozen of us quietly nodding along with your post. It may take some time for people to come along and mod things appropriately.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 21 2024, @08:10AM
Some strong delusions shown here.
(and I'm deluding myself there are a dozen of us who agree with this position)
:very-large-grin:
(Score: 5, Interesting) by owl on Friday June 21 2024, @03:30AM (34 children)
There are those individuals that are just toxic. In real life they dial down their toxicity due to fear of a fist to the face. But on the 'net, with anonymous comments, they can let their toxic nature out in full, with no fear of repercussions (at least of the instant feedback provided by a fist to the face).
There are also a whole class of people that simply have no innate ability to recognize cause and effect. They simply can not connect the dots between "if I do X" and "then Y results"
The first group is posting toxic AC comments because doing so is their outlet for their toxicity, and the feedback look between their posts and an eventual turn off of anonymous commenting is long enough that they either don't care, or figure it won't happen before something else comes along to steal their attention.
The second group are simply incapable of recognizing the fact that if they abuse anonymous comments that they will lose the ability to make anonymous comments. They simply can't connect those dots, ever, and so they won't ever stop posting toxic things as AC until they simply are not allowed to do so. At which point they will scream and holler about how this sudden change is a terrible impact on them, and from their viewpoint, it was sudden, because they can't recognize the connection between cause and effect.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 21 2024, @04:32AM (33 children)
Don't forget about that third group of people: those with the active goal of getting rid of anonymous posting (either as a direct goal or to further their underlying goal). I've run into that on a number of forums. It has to be the goal of their actions since any alternatives would be better executed in other ways. This is especially obvious when you compare it to how most people set about accomplishing those disparate goals.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday June 21 2024, @09:16AM (32 children)
That leaves me even more puzzled. What would anyone gain from that? ACs have contributed, and continue to contribute, insightful comments. What would change by getting rid of anonymous posts?
Additionally, a small but significant sum is donated to the current site each year by ACs. Such donations benefit us all.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 2) by owl on Friday June 21 2024, @05:20PM (8 children)
Unknown, we'd have to ask them -- and the one's out to destroy the ability to AC comment likely won't give a straight answer to the question even if we could ask.
Possibly they are the 'net versions of Homeowners Association busybodies who have to have their nose into controlling everyone's activities in the most minute detail and so they try to actively destroy AC posting because they feel there would be better "control" of folks if they have to post with their "names" (not that the "names" are really any less anonymous than AC's, but......).
Or maybe they actually hate the very concept of "free speech" and they realize that AC style commenting on the 'net is partly a "free speech" aspect and so they try to destroy the AC commenting so they can further their goal of reducing/eliminating free speech possibilities?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday June 21 2024, @05:42PM (7 children)
That is precisely why I have opened up the commenting to ACs. This is their chance to join in the discussion (and maybe even tell us the answers).
At the same time I am getting other people's insights (yours included) into why they might be behaving as they do.
There can be no solution if we cannot understand the problem.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 2) by owl on Friday June 21 2024, @10:06PM
Hopefully they provide some insights. However I'm not hopeful that the AC's that are overtly trying to just be trolls or appearing to overtly be attempting to get all AC postings closed will actually admit to any of their true motives.
The AC spammers we can understand, they are attempting to obtain free advertising for whatever product or huckster scheme they are peddling.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 21 2024, @10:54PM
I'll give you an honest answer. I've expressed most of this in an email to admin@soylentnews.org yesterday, and I put my name on it when I did so. I'll leave out specific details or anything that might be viewed as calling people out. TMB once made a distinction between people who care about the site but occasionally have self-control issues, and people who simply don't care and have zero intention of abiding by the rules. You can decide for yourself which group I am in.
This site has a few users who frequently disrupt discussions. Some of them are easy to spot because they identify themselves by repeatedly posting unprovoked personal attacks, then behave indignantly when they're told it's against the rules. Others are more subtle, suggesting that people they disagree with have ulterior motives for posting, and would prefer to create a massive argument instead of admitting when they're clearly wrong about something. They have some similarities to the first group in that they express outrage when their behavior is criticized. They insist that they're being completely reasonable, and it's the person arguing back who is unreasonable. In some ways, they are actually more effective at disrupting discussions because they can sometimes give the illusion that they're being civil and reasonable. You can spot them because they target the same topics over and over, questioning the integrity of users who disagree with them and starting massive arguments that disrupt the discussions.
I don't have a lot of patience for this type of behavior. When someone questions my motives simply because they disagree with my opinion, tell me that I'm an ignorant idiot because they don't want to admit that the facts aren't on their side about something, and contradicts themselves to avoid admitting the truth, I get angry. The behavior I'm describing is classic trolling. There are some users here who are very effective at pushing my buttons and getting me to bite. Because I am angry about what the troll has said to me, I am often quick to respond in kind. I don't set out to be a participant in a massive argument, but I get drawn in by the troll. In the end, I'm not proud of the things I've said, and it could look like I'm no better than the troll. I regret this afterwards because I cringe when I go back and read what I said in anger, and because I know I've been a participant in disrupting the discussion. I never set out to create toxicity, but I've helped to increase the level of toxicity anyway.
I'm not the only person who has noticed these behaviors in themselves. At least one (former?) staff member said they had greatly limited their participation because they didn't like the toxic behaviors it brought out in them. I feel the same way. The worst part of it is that the trolls simply continue their behavior toward other users, and it feels like they're able to do so with impunity. I end up feeling guilty because my own behavior crossed the line, and I know I could have spent my time in so many more constructive ways than arguing with the troll. However, the troll simply goes on their way to do the same thing to others, quarreling with them in the same way, and it seems like there's no justice.
If I don't like my own toxic behavior, the best way I know to prevent it is to stop participating. Perhaps I'm a fool and a weak person for allowing myself to be drawn into arguments instead of having the good sense to avoid the trolls in the first place. I'll accept that judgment. But decreasing participation in the site was the staff member's solution, and it also seems like the best solution for me. I know that I probably lack the self-control to risk being baited by the troll again, and I'll end up disrupting more discussions if I don't put an end to it.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2024, @01:35AM
I am the AC who posted https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=61337&page=1&cid=1361445#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]. I should also let you know that if you have responded to me by email, I haven't received those emails. Perhaps you have simply not written any emails, which is okay. But if you have, I want to alert you that you may be having issues with the email system. Other comments have suggested that this may be happening, so I wanted to alert you in good faith.
Like I said, this site tends to bring out the worst in me, the most toxic behavior, when I interact with certain people. Anyone who wishes to say that I need more restraint is correct, and I accept that as one of my faults. But if I lack that restraint, the next best thing I can do is avoid the temptation to have those interactions. Be well, sir.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2024, @06:53AM (3 children)
I have considered adding my thoughts on the AC issues. Problem is some admins have spread falsehoods as fact and refuse to own their own part in the problem. There have been numerous users complaining of abuse over the years and I can testify to receiving false accusations. Look inward for your inability to engage others in a humane fashion, and look to your biases that allow some to violate site policy with impunity. If you can not admit that you've made serious errors then there is no point to a discussion.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 22 2024, @07:36AM (1 child)
How many of them followed the appropriate complaints procedure - which is not simply complaining in some random comment? Send an email to the Board (which will probably have zero effect at the moment) or send it to admin@soylentnews.org. Every administrator will then receive it. The staff can decide what measures to take and can apply any necessary corrective action. But they have to have a means of contacting you. This has been explained to you several times - the ball is in your court.
Where errors have been made then I have apologised. Two people who had comments deleted in error have received my apologies and both have thanked me for doing so. The difference is that I have a means of contacting them because I know which accounts they hold.
Your situation is very different. Part of my responsibilities at Day Manager include:
Carry out regular, and if necessary frequent, checks for the following:
Can you see yet why your posts might attract attention?
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 23 2024, @03:31PM
Uh oh you are back to abusive accusations instead of apologizing for your mistakes. If you wonder why many people have left look no further than your own actions.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 22 2024, @07:37AM
Ah, the weekend again....
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 21 2024, @06:50PM (8 children)
As someone whose local situation is dangerous, I can tell you some true examples.
People here face deadly consequences for saying "pro-LGBTQ+" things.
Anonymous forums are used by quashed groups for safety.
Blocking access to open anonymous forums is a major priority for autocratic forces here.
I use TOR and can still visit some sites, but you will never find me saying even the acronym LGBTQ+ when logged in, even if the public sees AC.
I am not that important, but I do have enemies, and I must expect SN's data to eventually hit the dark web, so I must limit your collection - even if you claim to not store it, I cannot trust that POST and GET queries aren't logged somewhere by accident, for example.
But locally, every anonymous queer online group is on Signal or the darknet. We don't have Grindr; it would kill us.
Even as I write this I worry that maybe I've said too much, but the sad reality is that there are lots of other nations where people face the same, I am among millions and millions (though my English is uncommonly good) - so long as I am a true AC.
That's one easy example. I hope it suffices.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday June 21 2024, @07:25PM (7 children)
It depends on where you mean by 'here'. Can you cite a genuine provable example? Are you suggesting that people have been killed as a result of their posting on this site? I find that hard to believe without some supporting evidence.
Again you use the vague 'here'. Do you mean on this site? You can remain anonymous and still post on this site. People are doing it every day.
And if you never mention LGBTQ+ again nobody will be any the wiser. It rarely comes up in the discussions that we have.
I would like to be able to help you, but if you are so concerned about being on the internet then perhaps you are making the right decision by avoiding our site, and any other for that matter.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by owl on Friday June 21 2024, @10:13PM (1 child)
I interpreted AC's "here" in the context of the locality in whence they reside.
As in, in their home country, there are "agents" scouring the inter-webs looking for evidence of speaking other than the approved group-think, and that when such evidence is found, the posters can (and/or do) often disappear in the middle of the night, never to be seen from again.
And that by inference, the AC's that appear to be deliberately attempting to misuse AC posting to such an extent to get it removed are actually doing so because it is their assigned task as one of those 'agents', because any deviation from today's approved group-think must be squashed rapidly.
And, given what we have heard from those who have escaped such regimes throughout history, this could very well be some portion of the overt AC's that look to be attempting to cut their nose off to spite their face and get AC posting banned.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 22 2024, @12:45AM
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 21 2024, @10:18PM (2 children)
I could imagine "here" being somewhere like Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. Hang in there GP (grandparent poster).
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 22 2024, @12:43AM (1 child)
I accept the information that 'owl' and yourself have given. I can make those assumptions too. You omitted several countries that I was considering as possibilities. I would actually like a response from the person making the statements. We can (mis)interpret what ACs say all day long and not learn anything more about the truth behind what is being said.
You might not be aware that this is only 1 of several comments made by this AC. I am trying to resolve some of the inconsistencies between the statements to my own satisfaction. The site was created to cope with whistleblowers and those that genuinely must remain anonymous. There are perhaps things that we can do to help such people. However, I do not wish to compromise them by trying to give them to every AC who thinks it might be another cool way of abusing the site itself. It is possible to create an account that contains no PII whatsoever, but it cannot be done using the normal account creation software.
The comments that he has made appear to provide him with some form of essential security that he finds acceptable, otherwise he would not have made the various comments that he has. He has given information to a public site that he believes would endanger him if it were to become known wherever he is. So he either believes that has some degree of security or he does not.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2024, @01:32AM
Fair enough.
There is a middle road where AC comments are subject to being queued for review before being published to main-page stories without any promise of ever appearing. Of course this would likely call for rework of the site software and would need volunteer reviewers. Still, it would restore a pathway for whistle-blowers and others who are in sensitive situations.
Wish I could do more than jaw about it. Good luck and best wishes (I have a world-class cardiologist if you ever need a second opinion).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2024, @03:46PM (1 child)
When I'm in Russia, if the faintest pro-LGBTQ messaging associated with me, I could be imprisoned for years. When I am in parts of Africa I would be subject to the death penalty.
It's not vacationing. I don't take the controlled risks for fun. And I don't allow myself uncontrolled risks that would put myself and those around me in serious danger.
Is that concrete enough for you?
Why should I have to trust that SN servers have not been hacked by Ru or one of their allies who openly share info?
You have no obligation to provide a safer space for people like me. But you have lost my posts and contributions; you have cut us out of our oops pardon I mean your community.
I DO avoid SN. I do NOT have an account here. I DO use Tor exclusively when talking more openly. Thanks for the security advice, but no shit? I'm not in prison yet?
If you won't understand when it's laid out clearly, I must assume you're engaging in bad faith and unwilling or incapable of mentally modelling situations other than your own.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 22 2024, @04:12PM
You are not 'cut out of your community'. You have chosen to be Anonymous Coward. That comes with some restrictions. The restrictions are necessary because of the actions of some Anonymous Cowards.
You could have full access to the site but you choose not to do that. It is your decision. It is your choice. We don't need to know any personal information about you. If you are as security aware as you claim you know how to contact us safely.
I've lived in Russia too - for 3 years. Using TOR will get you noticed very quickly. But you know that of course....
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Friday June 21 2024, @08:29PM
Perhaps it's not what they would gain, but rather about what they'd loose.
I mentioned plastic.com in another comment. The posting as AC possibility there was considered fundamental, not so much because of free speech (that was the second reason), but as a protest against the self-promoting blog and media authors of the time.
Maybe that's what trolls who are out to flood the site with AC bullshit posts feel instinctively: that the ability to post as AC focuses attention on content, and not on the individual.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Saturday June 22 2024, @06:38AM (12 children)
Why force an end to ACs? Possibly as part of a vendetta to dox someone.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 22 2024, @08:28AM (2 children)
Who are you suggesting is trying to dox whom? I'm not sure that I follow your point.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday June 22 2024, @01:17PM (1 child)
Parent mentioned idiots being obnoxious as ACs, trying to get all ACs banned.
Having observed such a feud (from a safe distance) I think it might be an effort to force someone else to identify themselves (nyah nyah, made you get a handle, now I can harass you more directly). So, a form of doxxing.
That it doesn't make any sense wouldn't occur to the bad actor, as they think whatever they want will happen if only they keep doing it hard enough. Magical thinking.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 22 2024, @03:30PM
Possibly, but a nickname need not give anything away about who a person actually is. It does, as I think you are suggesting, provide some form of continuity for comments providing that they do not use the alternative option of posting anonymously again :)
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Saturday June 22 2024, @10:07AM (8 children)
There are 2 possible interpretations to that statement.
The first is that we simply prevent all ACs from commenting anywhere on the site unless they are logged in. I do NOT support this. I would prefer to find a way in which all ACs can be given access to the entire site - but that rather depends upon the behaviour of the abusive ACs themselves. So I am trying to use this story to find out what that small number of ACs are hoping to achieve by their actions. So far none of them have given any kind of explanation. They haven't said what their aims are.
The second interpretation is perhaps one that can be reached by adding something to your statement : Why force an end to ACs' restrictions on this site.
From 2014 to 2022 the rules of this site were only applied loosely and were often ignored by those responsible at the time for managing the site on a day-to-day basis. There were no records kept and the application of bans seemed rather arbitrary. During the latter part of that time period we lost around 90% of our community. Having approached a (admittedly small) sample of around 50 recent departees it was evident that the toxic atmosphere on the site had made it unpleasant to participate in and was a contributory factor. Unless that atmosphere could be changed then the site's demise seemed to be a foregone conclusion. In 2021/2 first Martyb and then myself took over the daily management and agreed that we had to clean up the act if the site was to survive. Unfortunately Martyb had several strokes which left him unable to continue in any role for quite a significant period of time. Both Martyb and I have tried to enforce the rules as they already exist in a fair and dispassionate way. We follow the policy document that suggests we start with the minimum action to achieve any desired effect. It usually comprises of a private but friendly warning. But that did not take into account that having ACs with unlimited access meant that it was impossible to control how a minority behaved on the site.
We had a site-wide discussion on the subject - that largest comment response ever in our history with over 800 comments. It was clear that the community reluctantly but by a large majority wanted the 'bad' ACs off the main stories but that left us with a problem. There is only a single AC account. All ACs have to be treated the same. The only option open to us was to restrict their ability to interfere with the main stories which we did.
I have suggested several alternatives to help the ACs participate but one AC who claimed to be representing them all rejected each one. I stated quite clearly at that point that it was up to the ACs to suggest a workable solution that satisfies everyone. They have not done so.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday June 22 2024, @01:25PM (5 children)
Having followed all the discussions on the issue...
I think you've done a stellar job, and came to the best solution available.
I expect different Bad ACs have different motivations, but it probably boils down to "Nyah nyah, made you jump."
[Having come to this discussion thing via BBSs and Usenet, I find our version of "toxic" mild and easily ignored. But I'm not the valiant knight working the back end, for which I profoundly thank you.]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 23 2024, @04:00PM (4 children)
I have been labeled a spammer and none of what you guessed is my motivation. I am also not spamming, so something is wrong with some of the underlying assumptions. Selective accusations that ignore similar behavior from other users is a site management problem but ACs have little recourse and the only sanctioned redress are private discussions with staff who as some ACs are now aware lie (aware or not) based on flawed assumptions. Complaints about such abuse or other issues are then labeled spam, meanwhile admitted trolls and liars are considered "free speech."
Not a healthy community management situation.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday June 23 2024, @04:17PM (3 children)
You are just repeating what you have already said several times in this Meta, and numerous times before elsewhere. That is off-topic and repetitive. This is your last warning.
You have been told what action you have to take to address your complaint. Whinging in this Meta is not the answer.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 23 2024, @04:34PM (2 children)
It was on topic. You continue to abuse users. It will remain relevant as long as you continue. You ask for explanations from ACs then mod those explanations spam because they are critical of your actions. Irony much?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday June 23 2024, @05:09PM
This is not a guessing game. You have been given access to this page so that YOU can tell US what you motives are. If we don't know what you want there is very little chance that you will get it.
If you do not wish to tell us you what you want (which you haven't yet done) then you can return to those places where you are allowed to post comments.
This is taken from a recent Meta [soylentnews.org]
ACs accusing me of being a secret agent working for Putin is just about the most childish thing they could possibly do. They obviously do NOT know my background.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday June 24 2024, @09:42AM
Emphasis mine. That does not fit it with your claim that you were given the account. In fact, it tends to suggest that you were lying then, you are lying now, or perhaps you are lying both times?
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 23 2024, @07:48AM (1 child)
Did that coincide with covid-19 lockdowns and other restrictions?
On a Dutch website I've seen quite an impressive explosion of comments during the covid-19 period, both anonymous and from people with accounts, of people totally distrusting not just the government but basically everyone who didn't fully agree with them, and they were pretty toxic — but thought everyone except them was. That site does not have a refined moderation system that helps suppress stupid comments, and the average level of intelligence I saw there is quite a bit lower than I see over here, but I can imagine the effect could still be there on this site, in a less blatant form. Can that have been a factor?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday June 23 2024, @09:39AM
It was undoubtedly a factor but my questionnaire allowed more than one response. I haven't got the results any more (I deleted them rather than keep them on my own computer. They were sent and received via emails.) I cannot recall the figures but it was certainly more than half who mentioned it as a contributory factor.
The problems first became significant in 2016 and the abuse was usually based on political ideologies in the US at that time. A few well-known site nicknames became more active and abusive in both general comments and in their own journals. Their journals are still there to be read by anyone who wishes to do so.
Things deteriorated further during the COVID pandemic, presumably because there were more people at home and unable to do what they had been doing before the pandemic. The abuse did not decline once the pandemic fell back to manageable levels.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Friday June 21 2024, @10:16AM (19 children)
I am not quite clear, will this apply to AC posts only, or do you intend to pre-moderate all comments?
If it is the latter then I worry you will kill discourse on this site. I stopped posting (and eventually visiting completely) The Register because they changed their policy to "pre-moderate" all comments before posting.
It isn't that my comments were constantly being rejected there (although a few were, for reasons beyond me as they were purely technical in nature), but the fact that it would take hours, sometimes days, for them to reach my comment in the queue to approve it.
Effectively by the time they approved and posted my comment, the conversation has either moved on, or more likely died already. It completely killed the ability to have discourse on a topic.
And that is with a for-profit company that was able to hire moderators to do this. If you are just one person doing this in your free time, chances are that even with the reduced readership and commenting here compared to the Register, there will still end up being long delays between posting and having your comment approved for publishing.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Friday June 21 2024, @10:49AM (16 children)
I'm not suggesting that it should apply to this site. Bruce Schneier's response is perfectly understandable but it is far more restrictive than our own rules.
I am showing that it is a widespread phenomenon which is often resolved by more restrictive rules. I am trying to understand what people are hoping to achieve so that we can attempt to create an environment where we can more, not less, inclusive but without the abusive attacks. If it isn't possible then the current rules are probably the best that we can hope to achieve.
Despite all of our many discussions, nobody appears to have asked 'why' the abuse occurs. I don't have the answer, but somebody out there might have and the problem might have a resolution that we haven't yet considered. That is why I have opened the comments to everyone - including the ACs who abuse this site. I am asking them to tell me why they do it and what they hope to change on the site by their behaviour.
On the other hand, if it appears to be inexplicable, I can stop trying to find a solution that probably doesn't exist and ACs will be remain limited in where they can post.
We are about to rebuild a new site. It would be nice to adopt a set of rules that the majority can accept and understand the reasoning behind them. Our previous community was decimated by the abusive behaviour of a handful of people. I would like to see the community begin to grow again before I must step away.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Friday June 21 2024, @12:56PM (10 children)
I do hope that you didn't get any (more) bad news.
(Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Friday June 21 2024, @02:48PM (9 children)
I have an appointment with my cardiologist next week and he will assess if the medication is sufficient or whether surgery of some kind is called for. If it is surgery it will not be trivial. I have a minor operation planned for sometime around September/October time which must be completed first.
Regardless of the medical issues, I am 72 and cannot keep going indefinitely. I was supposed to take things easy from last October but somehow that didn't seem to pan out quite the way my cardio and I had planned. I do hope he doesn't visit this site! My current post of Day Manager is taking several hours a day.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday June 21 2024, @03:29PM (1 child)
Thanks for the moderation upwards - but I had moderated myself as 'Off-Topic' because, well, my response was strictly O/T.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday June 21 2024, @04:01PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by quietus on Friday June 21 2024, @03:53PM (2 children)
On the upside, the term cardiac arrest might get a whole new meaning [wordreference.com].
(Score: 2) by quietus on Friday June 21 2024, @08:05PM (1 child)
My apologies for that remark -- the good humour in your comment made me fail to see that my own reply could easily be interpreted as insensitive. I hope that didn't cause any (more) worries about the upcoming medical examination, and I apologize.
You form a critical part of the bedrock of this site, have always been attentive, generous with your time, insightful/interesting/witty and occasionally funny in your comments, not to mention the subs you've written and edited: thanks for all that, and ofcourse I wish you all the best.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday June 21 2024, @08:36PM
Not a problem - I still have a sense of humour too!
I appreciate the apology but it was neither necessary nor expected.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday June 22 2024, @01:30PM (2 children)
Anyone with cardiac issues (and a host of other chronic conditions and "symptoms of aging") should get a complete thyroid workup. There is a cardiac pathologist who wrote a rant on the problem -- he found that half of all fatal cardiac events were due to 'flabby heart syndrome' which is a direct result of low T3, yet until there's severe damage, it's reversible. T3 needs to be in the upper half of the "normal" range for the patient to be truly well. (The most obvious symptom is pounding heart when you climb stairs.)
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 22 2024, @03:34PM (1 child)
If there is a test that they haven't done I can't imagine what it might be.....
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday June 22 2024, @04:16PM
Weirdly, this is the one test that is rarely done.
-- They test TSH. if it's "normal" they don't continue. (However, "normal" is far too broad a range. Anything above 1.4 is iffy and above 2.0 is redflag, yet up to 4.5 is usually counted as "normal". At that point, I'm at death's door.)
-- If TSH is abnormal, they'll test FreeT4. (T4 is rarely out of spec because the usual problem is not low thyroid production, but age-related decline in the ability to convert T4 to T3.)
-- If T4 is abnormal, they test FreeT3. (FINALLY the test that actually matters, because T3 is the form the body uses. Everything depends on it.)
Usually you have to hop up and down to get a T3 test by itself.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2024, @03:50PM
Hey. Even though I'm not really welcome in your community, I do appreciate that you are a part of the fabric of this place, and very much wish you the best recovery possible. Be well and see you on the other side.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Friday June 21 2024, @07:34PM (4 children)
Ah I see, I thought this whole topic you launched was because you were thinking of applying the same to this site, rather than just trying to start a debate over what rules we should have.
It is indeed a widespread phenomenon, made worse by the fact regulations in some countries now force the website owners to be responsible for the content people post on it. Unlike say usenet, where anyone can post whatever nonsense/abuse/spam they want and the client filters it out, there is no real way for end users to filter out specific posters.
Saying that the Soylent moderation system is one of the best insofar that the signal to noise ratio is pretty high here, far higher than other websites, but it does not deal with personal abuse from a single account.
Perhaps give SN users the ability to ignore/hide posts from certain accounts? That way it doesn't effect the existing points system and does not require anyone to moderate comments. That includes the ability to ignore all AC accounts (for some the insightful AC's may not be worth the abusive AC's, so would be willing to filter the entire lot out). It seems like a more distributed method of dealing with abusive posters, v.s. having to centralise and moderate everything, which can eat a large amount of time for the moderators (who I presume would be volunteers).
Another option is to make human moderation only for AC's, and possibly those with low (or negative) karma. That way it offers everyone a voice, reduces the number of posts that have to be moderated, and also offers a way out of moderation if you have proven yourself a general positive contributor to the site (as judged by the rest of the community).
Best of luck with that. I personally don't bother asking "why", because abuse is something I've had to deal with my entire offline life. Why would people online be any different?
Some people may have legitimate grievances, some may just be envious of the site and its success, others might have a personal gripe with someone and too much free time on their hands, and some just do it for fun.
It is pretty much the same reasons people abuse others IRL, just human nature really.
Well, it is a tough nut to crack, nobody has got a good solution, which is why a lot of sites have become heavily moderated, while others have disabled comments completely, feeling it not worth the hassle.
What ideas I could think of at this juncture I posted above, hope its a bit helpful. Good luck with the site rebuild!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Saturday June 22 2024, @01:34PM (3 children)
We can already filter by moderation score, and most of the abuse winds up at -1. And AC comments start life at 0.
It's never going to be perfect. Either we get some idiots or we exclude some valuable posters. I'd rather ignore the occasional idiot.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2024, @04:03PM
THIS.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Saturday June 22 2024, @05:44PM (1 child)
I would agree with you except for certain provisos. Firstly, I assume that you were never a target of one of the spammers? Secondly, many people don't use their mod points to mark down spammers, they simply leave it for someone else to do. The longer the spam is on display then the more the community will simply not bother participating in the discussion. Thirdly, we have seen what happens when the policy that you are suggesting is actually used. We had it for over 7 years. It is what got us into this mess in the first place. It didn't work. Why should it be any different in the future?
There has been an incredible amount of work to bring the signal to noise back to a reasonable level. It takes taken over 2 years of effort. A lot of people will simply walk if you throw all that away.
I don't agree that we should just 'put up with it' if it drives many of our community away. It is not unreasonable to expect people to create an account if they want all the benefits of being part of this site. They are making that choice, it is not being forced upon them.
However, by all means put it to a community vote and see what the decision is.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday June 22 2024, @06:34PM
Having not been so targeted, I am perhaps too idealistic.
But I have no disagreement with your measures.
I regard this as a pleasant hangout, even if some members have questionable notions. We're aiming at a lively discussion over beer, not a brawl in the alley, and I think we mostly achieve it.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by quietus on Friday June 21 2024, @12:53PM (1 child)
There are also successful examples where pre-screening did work, and work successfully.
Such an example was plastic.com [wikipedia.org] -- old slashdotters around here may remember that site, as both sites swapped frontpages for a single day in 2001 (after plastic won a Webby Award in which slashdot was also competing).
During the first few years of plastic.com, until the site was taken over by Carl, anonymous comments as well as comments from users with a karma below 15 (if memory suits me well), all went through a pre-screening process, which could take hours or even a day. That didn't decrease the site's popularity: instead it increased it, as getting through the pre-screening process was a mark of quality, and discussions could run for days anyway: much as like what we have here.
I'm pretty sure that, at its core, the mechanism of pre-screening was what made plastic.com even more popular than slashdot at the time.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2024, @02:31AM
Sites are their community. The different requirements to post are just ways of gatekeeping that community by adding friction. Pre-screening made the community look better than Slashdot for a time because it kept the discussions free from most of the trolls. However, they also made it harder to replace lost users by raising the difficulty to join the community. Once the decline started, it eventually snowballed because of that friction. There are pros and cons to every approach and I'm not sure where the balance is for SN or whether it is already too late. Like life in general, the right answers aren't obvious until much later when they exist at all.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DadaDoofy on Friday June 21 2024, @04:57PM (13 children)
"In our own case it is rarely someone posting under his/her username that does similar things or at least not anyone who is logged in and posting anonymously."
Why not limit the screening of comments to those who do not fall in this category? If you are short-staffed, would it not make sense to just screen the comments that need screening?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday June 21 2024, @05:31PM (12 children)
I am not proposing that we screen any comments. That is the solution that Bruce Schneier came up with for his own site.
My approach is firstly to try to understand the problem. Why do a small number of our community think that it is worthwhile doing what they do? What are they trying to achieve? What changes do they hope to see?
They have a chance now to tell us all why they do what they do. If they have a reasonable justification then perhaps we can find some compromise and work out a long-term solution. But if, as I fear, there is no reasonable justification or an intended result other than disrupting the site then they can stay on the outside as they are now. The next site might also change AC access (unless logged in) to posts such as Polls etc. There are plenty of spurious journals that they can squat on. I can provide a list of them if all they want to do is make a noise. But that is something for the new site to decide. It is not my decision to make.
My Day Manager role, in conjunction with other admins, includes applying the current rules, not making up new ones.
Others in our community can offer their understanding of the problem - several of them already have done so. Had we intended to carry out screening (which we do NOT) yours would have been a comment in this vein.
To be a part of this community means accepting the community rules regarding behaviour. The vast majority of people do not find the current rules restrictive in any way. I'll bet that most people don't even think about the rules because they would never normally do something that might contravene them. If they do, the first reaction for admins usually is to give a friendly private warning. Our priority is to encourage discussion and the exchange of ideas and opinions.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2024, @04:15PM (10 children)
Yes, you ARE ALREADY deleting comments right here. Can you at least stop lying about things you do?
The only source telling us stories of any "enemy forces" is your own dishonest self. There is no proof whatsoever that the Dread Spammer Aristarchus is not your own puppet account, or a bot you control, or your coworker.
Anyhow, any of state or corporate actors can bring on any volume of spam, be it anonymously, from throwaway accounts, or from existing users accounts taken over; they have a choice of dumb bots, AI bots, and human employees to produce the stuff. I see no obvious ways to stop that if it comes, only to rate-limit it.
Now delete this message too and continue the pretense. Maybe your honeypot will manage to catch some more particularly dupable people before being retired.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 22 2024, @05:48PM (4 children)
When did you last have a comment deleted?
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2024, @06:36PM (3 children)
Here, today, somewhere between 06:36 UTC and 15:37 UTC; the precise time is for you to know and for me to guess.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 22 2024, @06:59PM (2 children)
I hope that you enjoy Telegram.
That does look like a completely spurious reference to me though. It is not a duty assignment. I am a volunteer on this site.
Of course, I apologise for mistaking your post as originating from someone else.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2024, @07:20PM (1 child)
Thanks, I do. Still, cannot wish you equal enjoyment in your assignment here.
Putin's agencies have swarmed so many such "volunteers", that the cover is now seriously blown for those in the employ of their counterparts around the world, too. People doing very similar acts and using very similar excuses, are likely to be doing it for very similar reasons. Your painstaking and continuous efforts to not see sense rather defeat the chance that you are a honestly deluded person.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 22 2024, @06:08PM (4 children)
How much spam have you seen on the front page stories? Say, over the last 6 months? Or the last 12 months? But you do say 'If it comes'. I hasn't come for the last decade, and I don't think we are going to attract that level of attention for a while yet.
I notice that you are not answering my replies to you but changing the subject to start a complaint elsewhere. This has been your behaviour for several months now. You do not have the interests of ACs or the site at heart. Your attacks are all personal. I described what necessary action you must take in a Meta [soylentnews.org]. Anything other than a formal complaint is just more spamming from yourself.
It seems that 'my honeypot' certainly keeps one spammer occupied, but I suppose that means you are particularly dupable.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2024, @07:01PM (3 children)
To substantiate your tale, do show several links to those your unanswered replies in said several months. In case you cannot, please do invent some better story, or ask whoever is tasked with it to do better effort the next time.
Since the site is controlled by a person who I have reason to believe is working for secret police, the site is done for, by definition, and interests of ACs have less chance to be respected here, than interests of Ukrainians have chance to be respected by Putin's subordinates. Warning people off is the only useful thing that can be done, and your chosen career deserves the opposite of respect and support.
There really aren't any smart ones left in your line of work, are there?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 22 2024, @07:07PM (2 children)
I don't think NCommander is a member of the secret police, but perhaps you have better info sources than I have. Your paranoia is beginning to show :)
I'm sure that the other admins will let me know when your formal complaint (of myself or NCommander) arrives.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 22 2024, @07:34PM (1 child)
Who "NCommander" is, or is not, means absolutely nothing, as you well know. The figurehead is not in control of anything, and can be blamed, at most. for continuing to provide his name to cover your activities.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 22 2024, @07:39PM
So just a formal complaint about me then - OK, I'll check my mail box frequently to see if the other admins receive it.
Anyway, time for my bed now. See you tomorrow...
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 23 2024, @01:55AM
It's not a problem you or anyone else can solve.
There are certain issues to do with primate brains and evolution that few understand.
Put simply there are two types of evolutionary behaviours,
1, That which benefits the species
2, That which benefits the individual.
In humans it's actually that which benefits the species that tends to predominate. Thus humans are not just social their societies overcome the tribal effects or "blood ties issues. The result is that large projects that benefit all happen. On ehat some call
"The rising tide that lifts all well found vessels."
In other primates it's what benefits the individual that predominates. The result is tribes with blood ties that remain small and actually only benefit one or two individuals.
This "individual benefit" actually predominates in some humans. Depending on who and where the research is done it effects between 5 and 25 percent of the population.
Currently such behaviour is looked upon as asocial behaviours that are incurable. Though they've yet to make it into DSM they are known collectively under,
"The Dark Pentad"
Of "Narcissism, Sadism, Psychopathy, Machiavellism, Spite"
There is not much you can actually do about such people, which is why there are way more in prison populations than general society.
Narcissism and spite are major drivers for "griefers" and they often have sadism and Machiavellism as their other drivers (Psychopathy is increasingly seen as a form of spectrum and not as an individual set of characteristics).
I would recommend looking up the "dark pentad" it will help you get some insight.
The LBQT+++ issue was raised, in general most just want to get on with their life and be seen as part of society and from most peoples perspectives they are in effect ambivalent.
Unfortunately for some that ambivalence sticks in their craw and they make the "Them or Us" distinction and push it really hard as they feel they are on a crusade. Thus they make blanket accusations of "Stalw, White and Male" or worse about groups they see as not being "with it" especially what they see as TechBros apparently so offend some that the make significant "trouble" to provoke reactions.
As some may know many "TechBros" which includes quite a few women, are actually on the autism spectrum and they lack social and communications intelligence, which makes them "easy targets" to what are "agitators" you find in many social issues who go out of their way to grab 15mins of fame in their chosen tribe.
Thus they see each agitation or provocation as brownie-points in there chosen grouping to climb up the hierarchy to get adoration etc from others in the group.
Logically there is only a couple of ways to deal with them. Firstly "remove from the society they are offending". Secondly find their tribe/group they are from and "trash the group and the offenders reputation within it and more broadly. Whilst the first is legal the second is probably not.
The real problem with such offenders is they may not attack their real target directly but through a proxy target that has prominence. If the proxy leaves the group then the offender becomes emboldened and thus attacks another proxy, and so on.
Eventually the real target such as a site moderator or owner is forced to take action to try and limit harm. Unfortunately this gives the offender ammunition to claim discrimination or censorship.
Thus the only way to deal with them is identify and link them to their behaviours, document it as rules infraction and block them.
Obviously to do that you have to remove anonymity to some extent.
Having an AC account that has "separate rules" is one way
Another suggested years ago over at Financial Cryptography was that you could be anonymous but your comments traceable, in that you had to create a public key pair and sign your submissions. It was suggested as part of a reputation system not unlike an up-vote system run by moderators.
But what ever you do all such systems will be attacked in one way or another, even full payed for identity systems. We've seen this with Russian Trolls who spend a lot of time creating or acquiring accounts and nurturing them so they have or appear to have respected opinions or reputation.
Such operations can often be spotted over a long period of time by seeing who "up-votes" accounts and building "connection graphs". Other ways are by "style spotting" that is untill recently for an account to look human it had to be run by a hunan. A human running ten or twenty accounts would leak style thus the account linkage could be seen. Any attempt to hide it by using several humans and rotating them through an account, also shows up because the style statistics will not be stable and the changes spotted.