SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
After experiencing extensive spamming, ad-hominem attacks, and trolling it became necessary to protect the site by preventing all Anonymous Coward (AC) comments by anyone who was not logged in. This was a reluctant measure but it proved to be 99.9% effective. It was however, far from ideal. It partially isolated many of the responsible ACs who contribute regularly to the site and provide a valuable input to many of our discussions. They are still able to use journals for posting as the editors of SoylentNews have no control over the content of journals or the comments made in them.
I sought an alternative solution and provided access to some of the stories on the front page and marked them as AC Friendly. I had hoped by demonstrating to those abusing the site that there was a simple solution that they would perhaps cease, or at least return to previously manageable levels. Unfortunately this was not to be. The abuse restarted almost immediately and has continued in every AC Friendly story that has been published. It has clearly demonstrated that this isn't a case of the abusers defending free speech or any other laudable and justifiable aim but simply an attempt to prevent the majority of the community from holding any form of discussion at all. I am not continuing the AC Friendly stories on the main page with the sole exception of this Meta story.
I next tried to switch the attempts to include our AC community around by providing stories from the front page initially to my own journal, but subsequently to the journal of a new account named 'AC Friendly'. This was rather labour intensive and was not something that I could continue to do in the long term. These efforts have been ignored and do not seem to be of any interest to the AC community. Likewise I will not continue this effort unless there is evidence that it is wanted.
There are many perfectly understandable reasons for wishing to post comments as an Anonymous Coward. This was recognised when the original Slashdot code was written and provision was made for such individuals in the software. It is a straightforward matter to log in to the site and then automatically post as AC from then on. This both protects the site itself and those using it. If your justification is that you do not trust the staff then I must question why you would want to remain on the site.
Free speech is an essential part of our ethos but it is necessary to realise that free speech and anonymity are not necessarily related. We want people to be able to express their views without fear of harassment, abuse, or unfair moderation. Only by doing so can we truly claim to have free speech. It means that even those with whom we strongly disagree have the right to express their opinions. Subsequent attempts to argue against those views should not involve any form of harassment of the individual making them. Any attempt to prevent someone from expressing their views is directly counter to the very concept of 'free speech'.
Likewise, anonymity is something to be valued. Attempts to unmask either named or anonymous accounts is unacceptable to this site's administration and will not be tolerated. Those who publish information that appears credible to us must be deterred from continuing by whatever means are necessary. We cannot verify every claim made regarding the personal information of a community member and we must therefore assume that it is has some basis in truth and is an attempt at doxing. It does not matter where the information stated in the claim originates or whether it has been stated on this site or elsewhere previously. If it has the potential to unmask a community member it will be treated as doxing. The site will do all it can to protect community members. We are also fortunate that in the 8 years we have been operating we have only had one account that felt it was an acceptable thing to do. That account has been closed.
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the toxic environment that has developed on the site has cost us numerous valued community members - both staff and regular contributors of submissions and comments. It cannot be allowed to continue. There is also no doubt that there is a straightforward and simple solution, and that is to prevent AC participation without the creation of an account. The software was designed to do this and it is wasted effort trying to find alternatives when it is unnecessary to do so.
There has been quite a bit of discussion over the last week or so. We have had a former community member (who was also once a member of staff) return to the site with his own story. Initially he chose to remain anonymous but subsequently decided to continue his comments under his username. I encourage you all to read the link given and the subsequent comments given in reply. I am very grateful that has taken the effort to explain why he has did what he has done and I welcome him back to our community if he choses to stay. As part of my reply to him I made the following statement:
It is vitally important that everyone is able to express their own point of view without harassment or intimidation or even unfair moderation. We do not all agree with each other. That is the same in any community. But by full, frank and honest discussion we can at least understand each others point of view and possibly identify potential solutions. The freedom of expression is still essential on the site - but it can only exist if we can ensure that it can be conducted in a suitable environment.
I stand by that statement. Since that comment was published I have received other views and experiences of the toxicity of our site from a significant number of individuals, including regular community members and both current and former staff. Quite simply, if we do not change then in all likelihood we will not survive much longer. It is not too late to make the necessary changes but time is running out.
I promised you that no changes would be made to how the site operates without first giving you all the chance to express your own opinions. But you have to decide now which path you want the site to follow. This cannot be a simple vote - as an extreme example we have no way of verifying that AC comments are not the result of a single person, or if some sock-puppets are still active on the site. Everyone has the right to be heard. However, let me point out a few rules:
- Any attempt to disrupt this Meta by spamming, ad-hominem attacks or trolling abuse will count as someone expressing an opinion that we should insist on accounts for all those wishing to post as AC. If anyone thinks that by abusing the site they will be helping their case they are mistaken. However, such actions will clearly show to the community that those who have been making the most noise about being prevented from expressing themselves are not actually fighting for free speech, but rather they are determined to prevent you from exercising your right to it.
- It will be pointless to keep repeating the same views as an AC. We cannot separate them. You want to be anonymous, you choose to have the account ID #1, and this, unfortunately, is a direct consequence to that decision.
- All views will be collated and then a decision will be made based upon them by the staff. This will include the SN Board who may accept that decision, but who have the right to choose the path that the site eventually takes. It may not be the decision that any of us want.
This is an important issue. It cannot be a simple vote but I encourage as many people as possible to express their opinions. It might be the last chance for you to do so. The Meta will stay active for several days to at least mid-week - but if it is abused excessively then it will be taken down and we will be forced to make a decision base on whatever views we already have or can get from elsewhere. I will endeavour to move the Meta in the story queue so that it remains on the front page. Many of our community log on at different times of the day or only on specific days. I would like to give everyone a chance to see the Meta story and to make their views known.
This is your opportunity - please do not waste it.
[Ed's Comment: See bold text - warning 2022-07-10 12:36 UTC]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday July 09 2022, @09:17PM (7 children)
I'm fine with that.
if you have something to say, create an account and login and post. post AC but login, at least.
I am very privacy oriented and have been around here since the start and at the green since almost since it started.
dont need: 'real names'.
do need: logged in users with at least some anti-spam protection
my vote, fwiw.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2022, @11:44PM (6 children)
I'm sure many would join, if you could clean up the mess, first. May I suggest looking through the posts of:
Azuma Hazuki (5086)
DannyB (5839)
DeathMonkey (1380)
fustakrakich (6150)
turgid (4318)
Now, do a cost/benefit analysis about having them around. How many reasonable people have they driven away. They aren't any batter than that psycho ari-christ kid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @05:43AM (4 children)
Given the "whataboutism" of the parent post, and the names on the list, the parent post sounds a lot like something a certain Arkansan would write.
FWIW, the people on that list have never posted anything that made me want to abandon this site - though I will admit that fusty can be downright frustrating with his "both sides are the same" arguments.
I wish I could claim the same for that Arkansan.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @07:36AM
Yep, Runaway is the biggest troll left on the site causing division and regularly posting misinformation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @06:19PM (2 children)
Couldn't be him. He's like the rest of you, writing a hundred words for every breath of an idea. The difference is that he actually has ideas. No, it was me, just a non-gun-toting American, who looked around, and didn't want to wear tie-died Che Guevara T-shirts and pink knit caps all day, in order to be welcomed here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @09:52PM (1 child)
Nice double down runaway
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @09:58PM
I know you are, but what am I?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2022, @02:41AM
If only someone would actually do what the OP said. Do a pleasure/pain-in-the-ass analysis, look at how they interact with others, especially new visitors or those with disparate views, and how they badger and harass, insult and demean. How much do they attract, versus how much they repel? At the end of the day, how does that fit the image you want to project, and the kind of posters you would like to attract?
Is it the kind of community you would be proud to spend your own time? Is it the kind of community that will attract constructive, helpful, non-combatant guests?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2022, @10:30PM (4 children)
No, really i didn't!
I only post as AC, mostly because I am a lazy bum....
I kinda wonder about why AC exists even though I usually post anonymously. If you want to discuss something you want to keep the "red thread" through the discussion, AC makes this hard since most AC post become "hit and run". Maybe an AC post should give you an UUID valid only in that thread and a passwd to use it in THAT thread and disable posting from the same IP in that thread. (and also putting a limit to post speed make select-fire posters STFU?)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @10:04AM (3 children)
That's how Reddit works. This site requires you to be able to receive an email with a password before you can use your account. On Reddit, you can throw anything you want in that field, since you can start using your account immediately.
Reddit has stronger anonymity than this site will after they require log-in.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday July 11 2022, @02:07AM (2 children)
Subreddit owners can also delete posts they don't like.
Which do you prefer?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by canopic jug on Monday July 11 2022, @06:42AM (1 child)
Subreddit owners can also delete posts they don't like.
Reddit is not a good example for many reasons, but the one I will single out is that subreddit owners regularly get kicked out or their own subreddits, permanently, with no warning or explanation. That is despite appearing not to have violated any of the rules. Reddit appears to be about control and keeping nerds on message. If they get too interested in software freedom or other dangerous ideas, then the owners of Reddit are quick to pull the plug.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Mykl on Monday July 11 2022, @07:41AM
I think that strengthens the point I'm trying to make.
Some posters have been essentially saying they'll leave for more anonymous pastures if we enforce a logged-in AC rule. My question to them is whether that pasture, while perhaps being more anonymous, will be more free? Your comment about Reddit suggests it most certainly won't. I would further argue: point me to a truly anonymous site and I'll either show you a total shitshow of troll, spam and malware posts, or a site that actively censors and deletes posts.
A SN community member really can pretty much say what they want. Sure, they may get modded into oblivion for it, but the post is still there for all to see. I would argue that censoring of posts and removal of subreddit owners has a more chilling effect on free speech than an SN login requirement (tied to an email address that only needs to exist for 5 minutes).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2022, @10:51PM
Insane ppl will mess up anything, they are dedicated and focused. You just have to keep them locked out (or up). Just kick AC posting to the curb (me included). 99.99% of the time they contribute nothing but grief (me included). Intelligent, courteous ppl with a good upbringing can handle posting as AC. The problem is some ppl can't function in society and even less on the internet. It would have been nice if no ppl were idiots but the world is what it is.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2022, @11:35PM (10 children)
You've been played by trolls who were out to get you to destroy your own site. They have succeeded.
There are plenty of methods to allow for anonymous commenting while dealing with spam. Captchas are annoying, but they work, and are a price most anonymous/accountles posters would I believe deem fair.
Ad-homenim and trolling as reasons to take away anonymous accounts? Sorry I can't buy that anymore. Too many times I have seen it be used as an excuse by the powerful to hide from legitimate criticism. That may not be the case, now, but site after site, service after service, proves that it will be.
Soylent's strength, as was the old Slashdot's, is that it allowed anonymous contribution, come what may. It exposed its readers to the elements, allowing them to stand at the precipice of to the wild sea of the internet. It's not always pleasant. Not always fair. But it is honest. Brutally honest. Even the trolling. That is why people can trust it. Try to tame it, reign it in, you're asking people to put faith in the one who fits the bridle. You're asking them to believe someone who paints pictures of the sea, instead of feeling the spray on their own faces.
Soylent was born out a desire to keep the old internet alive. The challenge of this site is to achieve that.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Opportunist on Monday July 11 2022, @08:44AM (8 children)
The old internet, the one that we OLD farts remember, died in Eternal September. When AOL allowed people with an IQ below room temperature to enter.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 11 2022, @10:30PM (7 children)
"The old internet, the one that we OLD farts remember, died in Eternal September. When AOL allowed people with an IQ below room temperature to enter. "
I happened to be an old white male (priveleged) fart very fond of usenet, and very sad to see certain dynamics of the non-techno-elite-class roll on in. But of course I also remember how much of an improvement wikipedia of 10 years ago was over the wisdom of usenet. And then again, how much of an improvement wikipedia of the last few years has been over that.
I'm still optimistic about opportunities that still exist to see things improve dramatically yet further, presuming we avoid the cylon/slaughterbot apocalypse.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Wednesday July 13 2022, @12:43PM (6 children)
I'm fairly sure that the Eternal September people had very little impact on the usefulness of Wikipedia. Aside of the occasional defacement, of course.
In other words, I'm still not convinced that it was a good idea to open the floodgates and let the riffraff in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @05:29AM (5 children)
Just for a little clarity, please. You are saying that those AC people are riffraff, and you don't want them in your gated, walled community.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by janrinok on Thursday July 14 2022, @07:02AM (4 children)
No, he saying that amongst the significant number of ACs who contribute positively to this site there are also some dingbats who might be termed 'riffraff'. To prove this point, you can identify one by standing in front of a mirror.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @11:24PM (3 children)
"To prove this point, you can identify one by standing in front of a mirror."
The 'walled garden' political code phrase triggered a nerve perhaps?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2022, @04:38AM (2 children)
Thanks for joining in; I admire your patience and curiosity. I was the one who received that face slap. My decision was to not reply, since I did hit him again later on the page with "It's good to be king." I resisted mentioning "The Big Book Of British Smiles," in another sub-section.
A few months ago in another thread I said something to him about his playing above his skill level, because he just couldn't follow the game. (Yeah, a clumsy sports metaphor; I'm just pretending to know.) Back in the original nostyle thread, I apologized for saying that to janrinok. After reading this enormous, embarrassing mess, I retract my apology.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 15 2022, @06:07AM (1 child)
And while I'm pitching final volleys (that's sports, right?), when he posted "We are neither pro or anti Americam." I followed it with "What do you think of Englamd?" and he hit me with -1, Offtopic.
Clearly, unless an entire country is truly reprehensible, the public face representing your brand should at least pretend to support it. A couple of months bacK, following longer interactions with him, my sub-vocalized, rhetorical question was, "can't they find anybody better suited for this, than him?" And then I looked for some chocolate.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday July 15 2022, @07:22AM
I couldn't find Englamd on the map.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2022, @03:28PM
And the people left running this site aren't capable of implementing any of them. All they're capable of doing at this point is changing the default value of a DB column from '0' to 'NULL'.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Username on Saturday July 09 2022, @11:38PM (1 child)
What harm is there if someone does spam as ac? It's at 0. Most will not see it unless they bot up-mods on them. Is it the reply notifications that is the problem?
Honestly, I never notice AC spam. Most of the time it's political views being posted as ac. Views that once get spotted someone will down-mod with their five accounts.
I think whatever issue you have is because someone acknowledges the spam, and responds (like this story) to the person wanting attention.
(Score: 3, Informative) by kazzie on Sunday July 10 2022, @07:47AM
AC reply notifications aren't the default, if they do exist. I've never received any, and have sometimes been surprised to find two AC responses alongside a logged-in one I was notified of.
(Score: 5, Informative) by gznork26 on Saturday July 09 2022, @11:46PM
I'd been reading the green site for years before moving to SN, and i side with requiring sign-in to post as AC.
That said, if someone wants to disrupt a community's site, they don't need to do it anonymously. There's a special interest community site that I won't name, which had originally been owned and managed by a single person as a labor of love. When that person died, another took over and did much the same thing. However, when he died of Covid, my friends and I were the only ones who could step in to attempt to preserve the site. We put out the word both within and outside the site to get members who could help out to pitch in. Once the site was moved to a safe haven server, a discussion arose about how to proceed. We stated that our preference was that the community as a whole should take ownership and that it should be managed by volunteers, much like SN. And that is what happened. The site is now much improved, as the design better reflects the way the users USE the site.
Recently, however, a problem arose. The section of the site dedicated to political discourse turned into an unending flame war. Moderators did their best to cool things down, but the griefers persisted in sabotaging any discussion. But unlike here at SN, the volunteers who manage that site have implemented a different solution: the political section of that site has been closed to the summer. Any attempt at political topics on any of the other areas of the site are immediately stopped as being off-topic and in violation off the ground rules.
I don't know what that site will be like when the political section is re-opened. The griefers may return or not, but I suspect they will stay. All posts are tagged by the user's screen name; requiring that did not prevent a firestorm from overwhelming the site.
If SN requires all users to be logged in, spam and other trouble can still happen. Should we also discuss what to do then?
Khipu were Turing complete.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @05:28AM (2 children)
I have stopped participating via logged in account after this community resorted to brigadier moderation. This site is a clown bus, and a short one at that. Everyday there is a bunch of clowns, that spend hours putting on their clown make up, their clown outfit, and doing their clown hair, then get on the clown bus and ride it all day long, and think they should be taken seriously. Not feeling compelled to tell them how they look and act, and how empty their head is has been a blessing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @06:23PM (1 child)
Ahem, it's an electric clown bus. And they all share it because they do have a clown planet to save. Fortunately it only has a 10-mile range, so they're going nowhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @09:54PM
Bold of you to assume such bias, and thank you for including the anti-environmental screed to let everyone know you're *ahem* riding that special bus!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @05:42AM (3 children)
achieving anonymous free speech is not easy...
It seems very important to me. It would be nice if here could achieve that. I think it could be most quickly feasibly achieved with a moderately more complex moderation system synergistically utilizing the web of trust/reputation dynamics that have thus far can be credited with pgp/gpg's less than spectacular adoption by email and irc/textchat users. I could explain the nefarious profit motivated reason why we haven't yet seen such things, but that would probably make this message more deanonymizable.
"I had hoped by demonstrating to those abusing the site that there was a simple solution that they would perhaps cease, or at least return to previously manageable levels. "
This sounds naive to me. If you are serious about enabling real free speech on the internet, you need to be in a mindset that you will be at war with at least moderately well funded adversaries that seek to nullify/cancel the com channel.
"If your justification is that you do not trust the staff then I must question why you would want to remain on the site."
Making available a method for real free speech on the internet is a serious thing. The right way to go about doing it, or even hoping for it, is to start from a basis of mistrust. Engineer the system so that as little trust is required to be given as possible. I've gotten a lot of value from wikipedia, but it feels degrading to be forced to trust any self described 'benevolent dictator'. Fuck dictators.
"We want people to be able to express their views without fear of harassment, abuse, or unfair moderation. Only by doing so can we truly claim to have free speech. "
I read this as false/self-contradictory. I believe you can only claim to have free speech if it is all but ineveitable that at least a few of the eight billion potential users of the system would end of feeling harassed and/or abused and/or unfairly moderated. I genuinely believe that if you are striving for what you say in the first sentence, then 100% the opposite of what you said, you could never truly claim to have free speech (in that kind of environment. Bottom line, eight billion of us, lots of mean unfriendly downright nasty individuals, even purely law abiding ones. Hell, especially them). If all those people get 'free speech' on a cybersystem open to all, then yeah, there's going to be a lot of fear of harrassment, abuse, and unfair moderation. What seems key to me, is to fully empower every user to be in complete control of the moderation of the system that determines what makes it to their eyeballs. Again, it's a pgp/gpg web of trust(ed contacts configured as weighted moderators including factoring in the 2nd/nth order people they have trust/modranked).
"Attempts to unmask either named or anonymous accounts is unacceptable to this site's administration and will not be tolerated. Those who publish information that appears credible to us must be deterred from continuing by whatever means are necessary. We cannot verify every claim made regarding the personal information of a community member and we must therefore assume that it is has some basis in truth and is an attempt at doxing. It does not matter where the information stated in the claim originates or whether it has been stated on this site or elsewhere previously."
This reads to me like you again need to focus on constraining the definition of free speech you are aiming for. Obviously Real Free Speech(tm) involves the freedom to identify yourself to others non-anonymously, as well as point out others who have identified themselves in the past on the permanent record. Maybe I'm misreading the above, but it sounds like you want a free-speechish system with enforced pseudonymity. Which is fine, but just realize that is quite a constraint/clarifier.
"There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the toxic environment that has developed on the site has cost us numerous valued community members - both staff and regular contributors of submissions and comments. It cannot be allowed to continue."
The slashdot moderation system was a remarkably workable first pass. If you want Real Free Speech (and a usable news/commenting service) you need better.
Perhaps start by, as above, presuming you have trollversary. First make sure they can't just write a forkbombish shell script that can DOS you. Make sure there is a way that their comments aren't immediately put before anyone who doesn't want potentially intentionally toxic information presented to their eyeballs.
Try not to uudecode anything with goat in the title.
Good Luck
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @06:16AM (2 children)
"it sounds like you want a free-speechish system with enforced pseudonymity. Which is fine, but just realize that is quite a constraint/clarifier."
Self-reply (take my word for it at least until a majority of AC deniers claim otherwise)-
Actually upon further reflection, I think it may be alarmingly dangerous that the article seems to be striving for this. I think it's important to realize in the modern age that some number of thug superpowers with infinite bank accounts will be tracking every pseudonymous comment, and tracking which pseudonyms are politically in line with what they find acceptable expression of political views for /citizens/peons/. And it may be unethically reckless to be pursuing a platform that presents the illusion that people are free to speak politically without fear of that modern reality and all that it may entail during the future in their lifetime.
This shit is serious. China, Russia, and the masters of GITMO are not as naive about cyberspace and information warfare as they may have been 25 years ago (when the slashdot moderation system was written in stone tablets for the first time)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @07:04AM (1 child)
another self reply after having read some of the other comments-
Why isn't the right (simple/imediate/firstpass) solution just another hyperlink(and/or configuration setting) barrier before a user can see true-ac-comments? Seems worthwhile to keep the ability to have them there, and have them at least theoretically modded up to a point where they could be seen (again, default could be unseen until user expresses positive consent to either see true-ac comments >= user specified modranking)
And perhaps emphasize the site lacks resources to screen all content, but with a 1-click flag to forward the content, and if the site doesn't want to look at a bunch of goatse stuff that results, they just forward the whole stream to local government (fbi/whoever) and say they'll be happy to take down whatever the local government demands that they take down.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @07:18AM
and further-
Now that I've seen enough of the 'but we dont have a perl programmer'-
This is an issue of wanting to claim cred for 'defending the capacity of free speech on the internet' without any real capacity.
Find someone willing to learn what it takes to implement the delayed permission for true-ac posting, even if you don't go that route. Or just go ahead and disable the (slightly)truer-ac comment posting ability, and pair it with an admission that you just aren't equipped to fight a battle to enable Real Free Speech on the internet, because doing so without losing quickly will take at least 3 employable perl programmers.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Vocal Minority on Sunday July 10 2022, @06:49AM (3 children)
I've previously posted that if you remove anonymous posting then Ari wins. This is a bit overly melodramatic and not really accurate but I think it would further their aims at least.
I do not support removing AC posts from non-logged in users. I do not always log in for various reasons, usually when I am using a device I do not trust, so one impact of doing this (outside of the free speech issues) would be that I will post less.
I'm also not sure this will solve the problem either as the bad actors will just create sock accounts to post their garbage.
However at the end of the day I do not have access to site numbers - active users/costs/etc. and if the alternatives are to close the site or ban AC posting I would choose the latter.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @06:28PM (2 children)
It's like the Bush years, though you replaced "Terrorists" with "Ari." We still have terrorists, and now you can't carry a bottle of Dr Pepper onto an airplane. Extrapolate from here, and... well, I have a life to live, so never mind.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @08:54PM (1 child)
Are you seriously suggesting that janrinok is Tony Blair?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @09:12PM
Nah, I picture him more as Berton Churchill [imdb.com] (not Winston).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 10 2022, @07:29AM (12 children)
Pure AC posting never should have been allowed. Letting people log in and post AC then is fine.
I've explained multiple times why this is the case already: a forum works on the assumption that all posts will have roughly (Fermi estimate here...) similar value to one another, and that the more posts the better. The problem with that is that it's a lot easier to shitpost, troll, and spam than it is to discuss things rationally. In other words, at least one of the fundamental assumptions of the forum model does not, and in my opinion never did, hold water. Entropy, if nothing else, proves this.
You ever hear the one about locks keeping out the stupid, the weak, and the honest? Same principle: putting up a barrier to posting that requires some personal skin in the game is the proverbial lock on the front door. It will stop the vast majority of the low/no-effort shitposting. The internet is a rough city; leaving your door unlocked is asking for, if not actually begging for, all sorts of abuse.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Sunday July 10 2022, @07:55AM (3 children)
How far back does "never" go? Are you thinking never allowed here, or never allowed on the green site either?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday July 10 2022, @08:07AM (2 children)
In terms of allowing pure AC posting? Never allowed here, with the green site's problems being the prime object lesson as to why.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Sunday July 10 2022, @11:54AM
Thanks for the clarification.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @06:33PM
AC is of course dumb, it must be because nobody can bask in the brilliance of your statements. Yet on the other side, some take registering here as a major accomplishment in their life. It's become a major part of them, of their personality, of their raison d'être. They're a celebrity, an influencer, a somebody. It's even better than the olden days, when you could get your name in the phone book.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by dx3bydt3 on Sunday July 10 2022, @11:19AM (3 children)
In the very early days of the site, I think even before we started using the current name/URL, there were discussions on everything from the moderation system to the posting of ACs. I argued against non logged in ACs then and I still do now. My experience at the green site had been that 1 in 10 AC posts at best contributed anything of value. Here, I'll admit that aside from the spammers that ratio is much better. Disallowing AC posting will probably cause us to lose some valuable input, along with the torrent of garbage. My hope is that some/most of these contributors will break down and get/use an account in the long run. Also, one can hope that some of the accounts we don't see much from these days will come back, if the comment section ceases to be a cesspool.
Whatever the final decision is, I thank the admins for their efforts and patience.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @08:19PM (1 child)
This thread is being quite illuminating for me on who believe anonymous speech is important and not.
Unfortunately pseudonym-based speech online doesn't offer the same anonymity as classical published words could, leaving a far longer trace without an incessant selection of nicks.
Furthermore the convenience of Anonymous Coward on here and formerly on the green site were the only reasons I chose to use them over other sites like Hacker News, Hackaday, etc, despite there being on average more highly skilled and insightful responses there, nevermind certain subreddits, like /r/WorldNews.
But this article has been insightful in seeing the real trend in values, on both the left and the right (in the American sense) on this website.
Glad I'm an anarchist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 11 2022, @10:39PM
"Glad I'm an anarchist."
While this thread isn't exactly the right place to litter with this-
What exactly does it mean to say you are an anarchist? I can't quite differentiate myself what the word actually means. In any situation in which 'the anarchists overthrew the government', the end result a day
or a year later would just be that people generally have to worry about the strongest group of thugs running rampant. In other words, same as it ever was,, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Do you think I should be viewing the concept of anarchy differently?
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday July 13 2022, @06:33PM
Agreed, but it's a price that I'm willing to accept. I got better things to do than sift though garbage to find a gem once in a while.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Sunday July 10 2022, @12:43PM
Agreed. Actually until all this came up recently I wasn't even aware pure AC posting was allowed and was sort of surprised to find out it was. A classic "what could go wrong?" as far as I'm concerned.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 11 2022, @05:23PM (1 child)
There is already a lock on the front door, you seen how this site looks? It's fucking awful... That is sufficient to me. Likewise AC posting should be allowed, but even AC posting is not fucking possible without a vpn. The only way to make this site free is to ban logged in posting. People should not be allowed to accrue karma and build an identity so they stop having psychological drive to persue a fake persona and instead post truth about how they feel and what they think. Any such incentives and dis-centives that exist are contrary to free discussion. I will continue to use the only freeish site on the internet instead of this shitshow.
Of course no one who logs in would understand this...
(Score: 3, Touché) by Mykl on Monday July 11 2022, @11:37PM
Person who claims to never use the site uses the site to post. News at 11.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 11 2022, @09:15PM
YOU never should have been allowed.
Become a full-day pain-in-the-collective-arse, get politely sent elsewhere. Do not pass go, do not get a right to direct the site.
It is how it was before lefties invented the "professionally offended" racket, it is how it should have stayed regardless. Keeping your ilk is NOT worth the damage you do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @07:41AM (18 children)
Remove AC posting and set all user mod points to zero. Moderation is abused, just remove it.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Sunday July 10 2022, @07:56AM
Mod parent Insightfu.... er, hold on...
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Sunday July 10 2022, @09:38AM (16 children)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @06:36PM
(Different AC, here.) No, the moderation process here is participation awards for the auto+2 crowd. Then the squad comes in, and down go your enemies, and up you go. Oh, it's such a glorious, heady experience, and the cap of a brilliant post or twelve.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 11 2022, @05:25PM (14 children)
Different AC,
I can appreciate how what the AC said escapes you given your moves with the site. I would force all posts to be AC, no moderation, no karma, no fame or infamy. Only filter applied should be the readers' own consciousness.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by janrinok on Monday July 11 2022, @06:00PM (13 children)
OK, if I accept that then how are spamming, doxxing or criminal activities controlled? If anyone can post anything, it needn't be intelligent but could easily be illegal.
If we are managing the site then we are responsible. How about ads for prostitution, child pornography, drug dealing, stolen property, human trafficking or slavery etc? Are they acceptable too?
We then become like the dark web but without any protections. Not, IMO, a good idea.
I don't think that you meant that suggestion seriously or, if you did, you didn't give it much thought before you wrote it down.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2022, @03:36PM (12 children)
How are you handling them now? I'm assuming not very often if at all. You've elevated this battle against some dude on the internet posting Nazi trash far beyond the problem's actual importance.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday July 12 2022, @03:51PM
They can't get on the front page, can they? Unless some AC decides to put them there - which is part of the reason for this whole debate. ACs haven't got journals so the abusers who wish to publish their unacceptable material have to create an account. We are NOT responsible for the content of journals but, as you might know, if you create a journal without have sufficient karma then they do not get indexed. Part of my job is to check that nobody is trying to do that! We don't just sit here twiddling our thumbs....
The post you are referring to said remove ALL controls and make everyone post as AC. Nope, that is not going to happen.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday July 12 2022, @03:54PM (10 children)
Of the last 500 new accounts, 8 are genuine accounts. What do you think the rest are? My job is to close them down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2022, @05:03PM (6 children)
Just wanted to reemphasize that point. I was going to try to draw an analogy to emphasize the depth of that problem; I can't find one that doesn't sound unhealthy, if not devastatingly disturbing.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 13 2022, @07:00PM (5 children)
Are "non-genuine accounts" anything as amorphous as the "bad posting" that gets IPs banned? What, to JR's mind, constitutes a "genuine" account? If we have no clear answer to this, banning AC posting is actually just censorship.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday July 13 2022, @07:21PM (4 children)
Pornography, adverts for prostitution, leather goods, second-hand cars, offers of business services etc are all examples of non-genuine accounts. Accounts that are operated by someone who has been banned are also examples of these. They contribute nothing to the site.
Accounts that belong to a user who uses his account to access the site to read the stories, maybe moderate, and perhaps join in discussions I would say are certainly genuine accounts. Those who have 'genuine accounts' but are only present to disrupt the site and prevent its functioning or enjoyment by others are not welcome, They tend to eventually become blocked accounts.
We have said that we have no intention of banning people from posting as AC - why do you suggest otherwise? We are simply saying that, if the decision is made that we ban AC posting without an account, then you will need to create an account to continue to post. It is hardly a difficult concept to grasp.
The fact that you are posting in this discussion is evidence that you have not been censored.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @02:51AM (3 children)
It would seem that adverts for prostitution... would include "Free Martian whores!"
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday July 14 2022, @06:11AM (1 child)
Yeah, I might let that account stay - just for the lulz you understand....
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @05:38PM
It's good to be king.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Thursday July 14 2022, @10:13AM
Or maybe that's just SpaceX's new mission statement?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 13 2022, @01:03AM (2 children)
I assume, from your other comments, that they are all aristarchus sockpuppets. Ari is nothing, if not determined.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday July 13 2022, @05:33AM (1 child)
There are over 30 attempts by aristarchus to create sock puppets / fake accounts. The majority of them are since he was banned in February of this year.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @01:47AM
So your success rate is below 50%? Pretty pathetic, janrinok!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @09:42AM (1 child)
I'm not sure I have any new insights, but I did suggest this sort of conflict was coming https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/07/18/0821234 [soylentnews.org] . I think the responses there might be useful voices of the past. One thing that the past voices implied was that special moderation may become useful in special cases. It seems like that could be useful for ACs. For example, maybe AC comments only show up to people with mod points and until they are modded up once they remain invisible to everyone else. Mods could even mod a comment as "hide" to make a visible AC invisible. Not sure how hard that is technically. Thus many of the bad behaviors are discouraged and hopefully due to such threats. don't happen in the first place, while allowing ACs who contribute to a conversation.
As for myself, I'll read even if I can't write, but I don't intend on making an account. I appreciate that I can, I just don't want to have more tracking of myself attached to an email. Sure I could make a burner email, but that is more tracking I have to do--in effect work. I'll just move on to only reading the site. I don't comment too often and don't think I was adding too much value to the community. Still, you wanted feedback and perhaps suggestions and even risks in the change. I've cited my old article in case it generates new discussion, particularly around risks of impact around culture. If things are as bad as you've said, maybe the risks of not locking things down are even worse. I've been a consumer with my only pay back to this community being my comments and rare article. I'm sorry if I won't even be able to give that much back. Whatever you do, I completely understand how hard this decision is. Since I may never get a chance to say it again, thank you and all the best of luck.
- JCD
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @05:31PM
I couldn't help but notice how this comment leads back to my previous article on free speech (https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/07/18/0821234 ):
"The Meta will stay active for several days to at least mid-week - but if it is abused excessively then it will be taken down and we will be forced to make a decision base on whatever views we already have or can get from elsewhere."
One of my links in my posting was to a wiki article around Tainter's ideas around social complexity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Tainter#Social_complexity ):
"When a society confronts a "problem," such as a shortage of energy, or difficulty in gaining access to it, it tends to create new layers of bureaucracy, infrastructure, or social class to address the challenge."
If even this one article has the possibility of going beyond what the mods can handle, it shows just how resource constrained the site is. It seems to me the site has a shortage of programming talent and in turn is adding a layer of bureaucracy/social class to solve the problem. This, at least if Tainter is to be believed, is the human way when constrained. My last insight, if it is one, is that may be the conclusion should be "until we have programmer resources." That maybe equivalent to "forever" if the site never finds any programmers, but by making the policy that way, if you do get programmers to help, this conclusion and perhaps my suggestion above can be re-evaluated for fitness and desirability.
Also, because these sorts of suggestions are at the bottom of 300+ post well, you might bullet point suggestions and see if the community likes any of them and if anyone is willing to contribute time to their implementation. Someone might be willing to take on a small one time project where they aren't willing to be a part time programmer forever. Again, all the best admins,
- JCD
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @11:59AM (3 children)
I came here because the green machine quit doing AC.
If I have to register should it be here or there?
This may be a social experiment to see if there is a reason for this site to be without AC.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @06:23PM
ironic this ac reminded me of this
(modwotac here)
to double down on the thought-
is the existence of the (i gather, but am too lazy to ... theoretical value ... ) some form of non-logged-in ac input via the journals much of a factor?
If it's not a factor, then I agree, we are back to personality and *gasp* news/headline/summary/discussion/modsystem comparisons. I've been here since the beginning and I truly had hope the spinoff might be better than the upstream, but having witnessed the sites history I have to say that dream of mine did not clearly come true. And I largely blame this lack of in-house programming skill to evolve the modsystem in basic ways (at a respectable pace). I.e. if the elsewhere-in-this-disc issue of delayed (say 1 week) truerish-ac gatekeeping had been implemented and at least experimented with years ago, as it seems like it 'trivially' ought to have been able to, I genuinely believe there would likely be a much better quality crowd here.
That said, I don't think the general quality of the headline/summaries here is so bad. I'd guess there are some people that would choose the only a bit less valuable alternative as an attempt to stave off monopoly/consolidation. Nice to have multiple options. Perhaps I'll write a meta-slashcode/fossderivedsite-browser/rssfeedreeder that rotates weekly between slashdot/soylent/[diaspora/mastidon/?]/??. But probably not this year, too much other work to do unfortunately.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @06:39PM (1 child)
The social experiment here of the last week showed posts getting zero to a half-dozen posts. Hardly worth getting that +5 Insightful, if nobody reads it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Wednesday July 13 2022, @06:55AM
You are confusing comment count with the number of views. Far more people read those stories and comments than actually comment in them. They are all benefiting from using this site.
If a topic is perhaps science or technical in content it can still be off interest to many people who have nothing constructively to add to its content,
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @04:18PM
you just want all that big black cock for yourselves.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by jman on Sunday July 10 2022, @04:27PM (5 children)
As a brief aside, am wondering where I fall in the range of SN users. As in my /. days, I receive a daily email digest. (Came on board here a couple of years after the site launched, having given up on /. when they stopped reliably sending plain-text versions of the digests. If I'm just browsing, no HTML tracking, please!)
As a rule I am more interested in the story itself, rather than the meta conversation about the story; but, if I wish to contribute to any potential conversation, I log in and do so.
So, unless I post, I never get to the comments, as the story itself lies happily in my inbox; to see said comments, I have to visit the website.
Now, when posting, I do make an effort to read existing comments (at least, the main ones, not always the follow-ups) so am hopefully not duplicating something already said.
Anyway, the main point is I just don't get the AC thing. It's like a mysterious voice that simply appears in the air and spouts words. That's no way to hold a conversation, and what's the sense in "speaking" if you're not tacitly agreeing to converse about what you said?
This ultimately relates to the portion of US Constitution's 1st amendment guaranteeing the right to free speech. It says you can speak, period. It does not say anything about the content of said speech (though there are various criminal statutes which might pertain to said content), or that someone has to observe what you might say (though without said observation, it would be difficult to see how the criminal statutes might apply, as there would be no injured party requiring redress from grievance. Tree falling in the forest, and all). Using "observe" as opposed to "listen" also binds the "press" portion of the amendment to the same concept.
Without meaning to open a sh*t-storm of opinion, contrast this with the 2nd amendment, which IMHO certainly could stand an update as part of its verbiage is no longer in line with other terminology in the Constitution. It begins by mentioning a "militia", which is controlled by Congress (Article 1, section 8), yet commanded by the President (Article 2, section 2 - when actually called into service, presumably by Congress). It is defined as needing to be "well regulated", which implies training, fitness to use any possessed weapon, etc. In colonial times, nearly every adult white male was automatically enrolled as a member, so of course they would need to "keep and bear arms". When it's time to fight, it might take too much time to get to the armory. These days, the militia is basically defined as the National Guard, a Federal institution, whereas, previously it was under the domain of the various States. Yet, the phrase "the right of the people" in amendment 2 has not been updated to jibe with this newer definition of "militia", or our evolving ideas of what a "person" is. It could be argued that as Congress controls the militia, it is ultimately responsible for usage of any weapons, and that as the definition of "militia" has evolved, not every single person has the right to bear arms (you still need to be at least 17 to join the National Guard, so a 12-year-old holding a hunting rifle is automatically breaking the law?). Personally, I think every adult should be able to own a weapon if they so choose, and be trained in its use. Being a military veteran, I'm down with the idea of checking war-type weapons (i.e., automatic fire, canons, nukes, etc.) out of the armory for purposes of practice. (Well, maybe not the nukes; let's leave those the the active duty professionals.) I can defend myself at home just fine with the small stuff, and don't think anything like a weapon of war belongs in anyone's hands unless they're on duty, or keeping in practice at the range.
Anyway, though not specifically worded in the Bill of Rights, I believe it was assumed speech would be listened to, which implies at least the possibility of conversation, and that to hold such a conversation, all parties must be identified so you can keep track of who's saying what, and further respond appropriately.
I just don't understand how speaking to that nebulous voice in the air can constitute conversation - go ahead, insert "talking to one's self" joke here. ;)
As with many things regarding the Constitution, it's about context. In Jefferson's time, when the amendment was written, if you spoke in public, chances are someone would recognize you, so there was no such thing as anonymity. If you chose to shout out a bunch of BS you could be called on it, as someone listening to you would probably know who you were, and could respond to you, personally. If the listener did not know the identity of the speaker, and wished conversation, they would surely ask to whom they were speaking before commencing said conversation.
Yes, we did have the printing press, but there weren't a lot of them, and it cost money to use them, precluding average Joe from taking that anonymous (and one-sided) route to communication. You can't talk back to a piece of paper, but if motivated you could canvass the local printers and try to figure out who hired them to print that piece of paper. Back to knowing who spoke.
That's just plain old-fashioned civil behavior (alas, also not specifically defined in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights talks about what we *can* do. It's assumed, as civil beings, that we know what *not to do*. Thus, the criminal statutes, which don't say you *cannot* do something, only the that there is a penalty for committing any act so defined.)
So, Jefferson probably never thought he needed to specifically say that speech implied conversation, simply assuming everyone would understand that to be the case.
Thus, the question: Though not currently defined in the document that is our Constitution, should the maker of said speech be assumed to be starting a conversation, with the agreement that all parties in a conversation must be identifiable?
Personally, I think yes. What is speech without conversation? If my right to speech is guaranteed without fear of repercussion, why should I A) care who knows what I say, or B) try to hide my identity?
Just as I can't carry on a conversation with a piece of paper, neither can I do so with a nebulous, unidentifiable voice.
YMMV!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @07:13PM (2 children)
"Anyway, the main point is I just don't get the AC thing. It's like a mysterious voice that simply appears in the air and spouts words. That's no way to hold a conversation, and what's the sense in "speaking" if you're not tacitly agreeing to converse about what you said?"
I believe the standard theory for defense of Free Speech would be the idea that some people have things to say/communicate that, even despite their unstated/tacit or explicit desire not to converse further about the expression, and that having those communications be ingestible by others [e.g. 'in the public square'], has the benefit of society under the presumption that the best results of democratic governance come about when society is empowered to , if they so choose, listen to such one-way speech and let it effect the future operating of their brains.
Obviously many forms of artistry fall into this kind of one-way [no tacit agreement to subsequently converse about the expression].
I for one believe in this theory, but can also respect (but will never submit to the force of) others who believe that adding real free speech to democracy will actually make the resulting governance worse.
-modwotac
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @09:22PM (1 child)
Then again, some of us have names with value to them. We don't want besmirched, hunted and destroyed, because we dared to mention Hunter Biden's laptop.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2022, @07:32PM
If you are truly so crazy gullible then your name's worth is over-inflated anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @08:28PM (1 child)
Many of the early discussions on American Independence were pseudonymous. I don't remember all the pseudonyms, but when you also consider the Boston Tea Party was considered an Act of Terrorism by the Crown, its kind of sad to look at what America and (as exemplified in this thread) SoylentNews have become on the slippery slope of 'pliant values'.
Either the values we claimed to embody are sacrosanct, or we're no better than all the other dogs.
Troublemakers need to be ignored or filtered. People making violent threats or doxxing can be reported to the authorities (who often won't do anything until there is overwhelming evidence, need for some wins for budget next fiscal year, or as proof of how bad someone was after they snap and say, do an Independence day massacre.) But giving up a fundamental facet of this website, or as America did during the War on Drugs, then War on Terrorism only tilts the slope further towards values we once abhored.
*micdrop* AC Ooooout!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 11 2022, @06:16AM
Franklin as Silence Dogood is the one I recall.
"Either the values we claimed to embody are sacrosanct, or we're no better than all the other dogs."
What a dogmatic sounding statement. That sounds akin to to saying "If there isn't actually one true god, then there is no differential evil between the religions, even between the one whose ritual is to throw children in volcano lava and the one whose ritual is to drink grape juice and call it blood.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. Don't let sacrosanctness be either. After all, when in rome...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Sunday July 10 2022, @05:27PM
Just to say to the admin, thanks for your efforts as always. If banning AC is the only way to keep the site running, then sobeit (even if "keep the site running" is code for "keep the admin sane").
Having said that, lots of talk of "toxicity" seems a bit strange to me. I get an occasional troll mod for stuff which is made in good faith, albeit usually controversial type comments, but in general modding doesn't seem too terrible. Maybe the obnoxious folks is something that kicks in with a higher profile account.
Getting rid of the spam would be nice.
Thanks again for keeping things going.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @05:30PM (2 children)
More SN user start to see the alt-right problem that has been pointed out since the beginning. Allowing all the racist shitposting for years is what allowed all this drama to get so bad. Suggest everyone check out The Paradox of Tolerance.
Nothing wrong with sane conservatives, but as we've seen many of the conservative users here eventually let out some blatant racism. Crafoo is back again, though thankfully seems to be leaving out the racist stuff (or just no stories to bring it out), Runaway dug his own whole publicly and repeatedly. Many others seem to have been driven off when staff decided to allow spam mods for racist shitposts. That should demonstrates everything on this topic.
Khallow is about the sanest vocal conservative around and he calls himself a libertarian. I can defend khallow, he is often wrong and denies facts, but as others point out he usually acts honestly. He does get dunked on for promoting environmental and democratic destruction, but at least 50% of the US holds similarly blind viewpoints so many treat him like a work in progress.
Now we have the majority of this thread devoted to whining about aristarchus, and sure he is obnoxious, but not even 1/100th the damahe to the site as allowing the on-going racism. Or the misinformation spread about COVID that undoubtedly led to a few deaths. Even in this thread I saw some idiot whine about progressives punishing "wrongthink" like "cloth masks don't work." Says a lot about a certain subset of users here.
Let the downmods flow ya snowflakes!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @07:52PM (1 child)
I agree 1000%.
The fact of who janrinok has picked as the scapegoat and who he hasn't says more about him than he realizes.
This is not a site worth supporting any more. It's a poor imitation of Gab.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday July 13 2022, @06:56AM
Enjoy Gab. Good luck.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Sunday July 10 2022, @05:50PM (1 child)
I guess requiring logins is the only solution, if after IP banning etc you still can't get rid of the spammers. I still love SN, and I want to see it survive.
I feel like it speaks to the state of the world in general that ACs with no login are no longer viable.
So many cool things in life are ruined by the turds among us. As a programmer, I know this well.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @07:07PM
No, it speaks to the state of the filthy admins. ACs have not significantly changed from the green site, back before it did what soystain is about to do, nor has it been worse here. I've browsed at -1 for around 20 years now. I like seeing what bubbles up from the quantum foam of the human psyche.
The world is not what changed. The ACs are not what changed. The admins are what changed. What amazes me is how effective janrinok's deflection, misdirection, and scapegoating seem to be. I really hope the other ACs calling janrinok on his bullshit are not all just Aristarchus, but even if they are, what difference would it make? janrinok has a conclusion, and now he's finding evidence for it.
There really is nothing wrong with being a moose lodge. It's the dishonesty that bothers me. The big man wins not with fists, but with well-known techniques that were collected in the COINTELPRO program.
I remember before he resigned, TMB once said that the whole place was a honey pot. I wasn't sure if he was being sarcastic.... Maybe it was obvious to him that this site is a COINTELPRO operation, and that he could not prevail.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @06:34PM
I never registered to Slashdot and when they required it to comment, i just stopped reading it all together.
Likewise i will never register at soylentnews. I might still read it, but i guess i won't be reading the comments. I mean, what's the point?
I hate registering and i try to do that as little as possible, which in today's world is pretty hard.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 10 2022, @08:58PM
I'm abusing your bold text!
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 11 2022, @06:26AM (36 children)
Just stopping in to give my opinion, one that has been suppressed, banned, and spoken badly about. I am aristarchus, the original. And I have to say, TMB's original objection to me pasting all conservatives as alt-right has turned out to be correct. And this is what has split SoylentNews apart. All the damn censorship.
You all know who I am. I am aristarchus. Evidently I have grown in stature, like William Wallace, to the point that fireballs can be fired from me arse. Stand back! I feel one coming on! Thai food can do that to you.
So, now, at the end, only now does janrinok realize the true power of the community. All the right-wingers who are buttherded by legitimate criticism are gathering here. I have seen users who have not posted for years! And strange that we have no contributing members with UIDs between 6000 and 17000. So if we take this discussion as representative? Well, maybe, but perhaps, not so much.
I think my reputation is based on the way that I argue. I do not tolerate fools, and yes, that does include khallow. But the point is, if my acerbic wit, and obvious rebuttals, could be rebuffed, then there would be not problem. It is only because they cannot that the right-wing is all butt-hurt and their snowflakes are damaged. But I have to INSIST that this is no reason to ban anyone from a community of discourse. Which SoylentNews has done to me. FuckBeta, #Freearistarchus!!!!1!
So, there it is. Do we go with janrinok, heir to TMB, or do we fulfill the promise of SoylentNews? Can we, or can we not, withstand the free debate on issues, using facts and logic? If we cannot, if we go with janrinok, then the dream that was SoylentNews is already dead. And it was janrinok what killed it.
I might have more to say on this, but it looks like attempts to keep me from posting, even as an AC, are in the works, so it might be time to say goodbye to aristarchus. It has been a good run, and I have enjoyed the company and arguments of many of you. Too bad that is has to end like this. Do not look for aristarchus anywhere else. He is gone. And SoylentNews is no longer viable.
(Score: 5, Funny) by janrinok on Monday July 11 2022, @06:58AM (18 children)
Apart from doxxing?
--- Yeah, doxxing, there is that, but what has aristarchus ever done to us?
Disrupted other discussions?
--- Yeah, of course, but apart from doxxing and disrupting discussions, what has aristarchus ever done to us?
Spamming?
---Spamming? That goes without saying, but apart from doxxing, disrupting, spamming, whinging about his treatment, demanding free speech for himself but denying it to others, what has ARISTARCHUS ever done to us?
With grateful thanks to Monty Python.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 11 2022, @09:46AM (7 children)
There never was any doxxing. Ask Zumi. No information ever posted, or we would know who, exactly was doxxed? Pretext, not a real thing, more runaway disinformation.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday July 11 2022, @10:17AM (6 children)
Are you trying to implicate Azuma in your doxxing? I can clearly recall her saying to you on IRC that you SHOULD NOT do it, and several times since she has told you that you are your own worst enemy for what you did.
Azuma was not involved in reviewing the material that was found. She cannot say whether it exists or not, only that she does not recall seeing it.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday July 12 2022, @03:46AM (5 children)
That said, I have an idle curiosity to see it sometime to see if it matches my own research :) Runaway's opsec is, how you say, pizdec.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday July 12 2022, @04:23AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2022, @05:32PM (3 children)
Obsessive research into your imaginary enemy? How do you say Prozac?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday July 12 2022, @05:39PM (2 children)
I say it "fluoxetine" because a whole lot of my customers are on it and none of them get the brand-name stuff when the generic works exactly as well.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2022, @09:27PM (1 child)
I saw a paper that the generic works better by a statistically significant amount but only in the US. The suggestion was that because it is so much cheaper than the name brand (it can be 1% of the cost or less), patients were more likely to follow the treatment and have less negative feelings caused by the negative circumstances surrounding the taking of medication.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday July 13 2022, @04:29AM
Yyyyyup. Because not being able to afford your antidepressant is pretty fucking depressing in itself...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 11 2022, @09:49AM (8 children)
I don't think that aristarchus ever spammed, despite TMB trying to claim political posts he did not like were a form of spam. So this claim is false, and uncalled for.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday July 11 2022, @10:09AM (7 children)
The Decision, posted in February, and partially repeated in this story discussion yesterday, states that, after the banning, ALL posts by aristarchus will be classified as Spam. He has many posts where he actually tells you it is his posts. That is Spam.
Secondly, I do not believe that it is the real APK - this is personal and aimed at specific individuals, not pushing his Hosts file. He has also compromised the actual sender by forgetting to change his IP address after spamming during a previous discussion and then making a comment. The only slight doubt in my mind now is, is it 2 different people or actually the same person running them both? It isn't too important, they both only currently have access as ACs and that can be switched off at a moment's notice.
No, the best that you can say is that, in your opinion, it is unproven. However, the first paragraph also covers the point quite nicely, don't you think?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 11 2022, @08:01PM (2 children)
Guilty until proven innocent eh? Without the necessary access to the site's backend? Interesting approach, totally sounds above board /s
Oddly you say TOR is great for anonymity and admit user IP hashes overlap, then you go and make pronouncements like the same hash means same real person.
You're either too old for this or a malicious actor in this whole drama. At this point the latter is looking most likely.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday July 12 2022, @03:49AM (1 child)
Where hashes overlap then they cannot be used. There are other ways of analysing the data that we have. But I mentioned a day or two back. With so few active members - including ACs - most AC are using hashes that are unique to them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2022, @04:22PM
By definition of AC you can not say that. Thanks for the clear example of your dementia or lazy tyranny.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2022, @07:50PM
"after the banning, ALL posts by aristarchus will be classified as Spam."
There we have it. A policy that impacted innocent users and allowed political bias. Any AC criticizing rightwing trolls gets modded spam, because as you like to say "if it quacks like a duck etc." I have no words left for how your shitty crusade has damaged this site, but I am grateful that your authoritarian nature has been exposed.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 13 2022, @07:13PM (2 children)
So, not really Spam, then? Only spam by decree, and with a rather subjective method of detection? I think we may have found the problem!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday July 13 2022, @07:30PM (1 child)
Unwanted, repetitious, disrupting, entirely off-topic, irrelevant to the discussion. Spam sounds about right to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14 2022, @01:53AM
You keep saying this, janrinok. In fact, you have repeated it enough to be disrupting, and entirely off topic: in other words, Spam.
Stop the spamming, jan!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2022, @01:14AM
. . . Brought peace?
[You have to finish the scene, janrinok]
(Score: 4, Informative) by inertnet on Monday July 11 2022, @07:54AM (1 child)
Despite your relentless efforts to turn it into one, this isn't a site about politics. I must have missed most of your postings over the years, because I always skip articles about politics, and articles that turn into politics. It would be wonderful if we could have mature discussions about tech and science, but that's just impossible with some people. Anyone can buy themselves an internet connection and start polluting discussions, so you are not special. Well, you are special, but not in the way you imagine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 11 2022, @10:50PM
I posted elsewhere about not understanding the word 'anarchy'. Similarly, I would hope the vast majority of soylent/slashdot readers would be of a mindset that there is nothing apolitical about tech and science, at least not most of the stuff that makes it to a headline here or there.
To say that science and tech are both highly politicized in the realm of journalism seems to be an understatement to me, for very good reasons.
(Score: 3, Touché) by stretch611 on Monday July 11 2022, @08:46AM
I know that my eyes are far from perfect... But it does appear that I am contributing, both this article and the prior article about this topic. And look at that... my UID is in that range and I have seen others in that range too...
To top it off, I contribute financially to the site with a subscription
A good debate only tends to happen when the people participating in the debate have accurate facts.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 11 2022, @09:51AM
Just Saying: this is probably not the realAristarchus. You know it's possible!
(Score: 3, Funny) by acid andy on Monday July 11 2022, @11:58AM (2 children)
But you didn't answer my question.
What does God need with a starship?When are we going to get back to the philosophy?Somehow I get the feeling we might not have seen the last of you. As previously stated, I disapprove of your alleged methods; nevertheless I wish you well.
At least there's one thing all Soylentils can finally agree on: SoylentNews certainly won't be the same without aristarchus!
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 3, Touché) by bzipitidoo on Monday July 11 2022, @03:15PM (1 child)
What would be like to be present in some fashion for the death of a being with God like powers that was nevertheless still somehow mortal, or perhaps suicidal? Suppose the way their death progressed was very slowly, taking centuries, and that it was to lose their minds first, before losing their awesome powers? You'd get Cthulhu and the rest of the Elder Gods, that's what. Still functional enough to cause a hell of a lot of damage, without any awareness of having done so, let alone any restraining rationality or love.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday July 11 2022, @03:44PM
One could be forgiven for thinking that's an apt metaphor for those in charge of western civilization at the moment. Probably substitute decades for centuries though!
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 11 2022, @12:35PM (8 children)
Somehow, in your 2000+ years, you have failed to meet Hanlon, and his razor? You never even read about him?
Scroll down a little bit to Opportunist's post. https://soylentnews.org/meta/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=50331&page=5&cid=1259707#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
You, however, seem to presume that you are the smartest person in the SN community. No one is capable of cutting through your bullshit, to determine the facts for themselves.
FFS, ari, people like myself with no access to admin tools have figured out that you have used dozens of accounts, and hundreds of proxies (if not more) to facilitate your vendetta against SN. With admin tools, you must be as obvious as a five pound tumor growing from the side of someone's head! But, you insist that admin are fools, idiots, fascists, and much more when they state facts that are obvious to them.
If you really believe that half or more of the membership can't see through your bullshit, then you are the biggest fool of all.
Back to the quote from Opportunist - Unfortunately for you, when the audience has a higher than average IQ, there are going to be fewer people who you can fool all of the time.
I guess the point is, you should probably take your ego stroking to some other forum, where people have average IQs or less. Maybe Facebook? Or Twitter? Or maybe idiotsanonymous.org? I'm sure that you can dominate any and all discussions on a forum where people ain't real bright. And, of course, your ego will feel really really good when the idiots swoon over your wisdom and mental prowess.
Whatever. You really should give up trying to dominate a community where almost everyone can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.
Oh, FWIW. I don't think that you're an idiot. Maybe you can take comfort in that? But, I do think that you're extremely stupid. Even very intelligent people can be stupid. Whatever your IQ might actually be, your whole crusade against me, against SN, against the staff has been stupid, stupid, stupid.
The time to bow out gracefully has passed. Just please bow out now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 11 2022, @08:05PM
Your sig is hilarious ;) I know reddit isn't popular amongst older folks, but your sig would make a great post on r/SelfAwareWolves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2022, @01:10AM
Ignorant moron.
(Score: 3, Funny) by kazzie on Tuesday July 12 2022, @05:38AM (4 children)
That probably sounds more impressive in countries that use Fahrenheit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2022, @06:11AM
That is why my thermostat is set to Kelvin.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday July 12 2022, @11:00AM (1 child)
Even in Fahrenheit countries, that is a backhanded compliment. Room temperature might be as low as 65 for some people, as high as 85 for other people. Given that the average IQ is supposed to be 100, Opportunist merely observes that most Soylentils are probably smart enough to dress themselves. Or, maybe not. (insert smiley)
My own take is, the average IQ of Soylentils is probably over 115, maybe over 120, possibly even higher. This is not a forum that attracts idiots.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday July 13 2022, @05:00AM
It's not a forum that attracts people with low abstract intelligence. Remember, INT and WIS are separate dice. There are a *lot* of people here who have high scores in former and very low in the latter.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2022, @05:37PM
Some can be an absolute zero, regardless of where they live.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Tuesday July 12 2022, @07:03PM
Shit.
A few years ago, I had a boss laugh his ass off because I was walking, stopped, stood for a moment while I thought about something, then continued walking a few seconds later when I was done thinking. I'm afraid to try this challenge of yours.
(Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Tuesday July 12 2022, @02:08AM
Hmmm... likely he's living in a home without mirrors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford