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: 4, Interesting) by Opportunist on Monday July 11 2022, @09:04AM (25 children)
Most people will be familiar with the paradox of tolerance [wikipedia.org]. What it means is that if you're tolerant of intolerance, intolerance will eventually prevail.
The same is true for free speech. As we can already see on other online media, from Twitter to Reddit to YouTube and beyond, state actors are in an information war. Anyone who hasn't been offline the past 5 or even 10 years will have noticed that we are being bombarded with more than just questionable material, with dubious veracity or outright lies.
Now, SN isn't Reddit. First, I'd dare say that the average reader here has an IQ above room temperature, unlike Reddit, and the site also isn't big enough for state actors to waste a lot of resources on it. That doesn by no means mean that we're "safe" from misinformation campaigns.
The noble idea that truth will prevail in a truely free and open discussion because falsehoods will be called out and shamed is nice, but as has been demonstrated before, an illusion. You cannot counter agitation and populism with facts. People prefer to believe what they want to hear than anything they don't, no matter how much you can back up the latter with proof of veracity.
Reddit and Twitter serve as a warning for what happens when you're a high profile webpage and don't bother moderating it, or rely on self moderation. With the difference that these pages are actually SO large that pure inertia keeps them going at this point. On either site, anyone who would have wanted to contribute to a meaningful discussion or provide interesting content has long left, with the occasional latecomer trying to actually provide something worthwhile. What's left is agitators, people cultivating their image, advertisers and trolls.
Now, SN isn't that big to rival those two giants. We will probably, hopefully, be spared by the political agitators (aside from the occasional layman shill for one or the other POTUS candidate). Still, I come here for the interesting, meaningful exchange of ideas and positions. I want to engage in a debate with people who have a similar or even superior level of information on a topic. That's why I'm here. If all I get is trolls and agitators, there isn't much of a reason for me to come back here.
And I dare assume that I'm not the only one.
If you allow this to happen, all you have in the long run is yet another board that only exists for trolls and agitators. Because everyone else leaves.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by khallow on Monday July 11 2022, @01:20PM (24 children)
I'm familiar with it, but it's nonsense [soylentnews.org]. Tolerate the speech not the multiple breakings of the rules.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 11 2022, @08:15PM (3 children)
Ah yes, tolerate the speech except for the speech you don't like. What a perfect comment highlighting the cognitive distortion that seems so prevalent amongst conservative thinkers. Probably all the rightwing media whipping conservatives from side to side on multiple issues to the point where they can maintain diametrically opposing thoughts.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 12 2022, @03:39AM (2 children)
Where has that ever been relevant? I'm not conservative and I've never opposed speech I don't like.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2022, @07:44PM (1 child)
You are conservative, maybe not Republican. That you cannot fathom the irony behind "100% free speech except when they break the rules we arbitrarily decided on" is pretty funny. The site rules cover "filth" so already there is a large subjective loophole that could be abused, so again your "tolerate the speech" is so out of touch. Also, if peoole should tilerate the speech then you should be ideologically against downmods, ya know, by definition of your own words.
Good luck parsing the loguc.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 12 2022, @11:47PM
Again, that is false.
I see you don't give any support for your alleged claims.
That is irrelevant. I believe we've established that this site can't function with APK-level misbehavior. I reluctantly accept that.
I disagree. The only time I ever complained about downmods was when aristarchus modbombed my posts a year ago.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday July 12 2022, @02:12AM (9 children)
It's not all roses, you know? bullshit asymmetry [wikipedia.org] is a thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 12 2022, @03:37AM (8 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 12 2022, @05:59AM
My paradox is that I can just barely tolerate khallow. The boy is so, excitable! He just an excitable boy. [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday July 13 2022, @05:02AM (6 children)
Your take is bullshit, though.
Look, it's elementary logic: A thing cannot be A and not-A at the same time. Tolerating intolerance is self-contradictory. You may as well ask for a married bachelor, a square circle, etc. Furthermore, in the realm of the real world (as opposed to formal logic), it's also self-destructive. You libertarians have a child's understanding of the word "freedom" and what it actually means.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 13 2022, @11:51AM (5 children)
And you have yet to show that freedom is even remotely under threat from the practice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 13 2022, @07:24PM (1 child)
There's a tell, with khallow. Whenever he says "obvious rebuttal" he has been triggered.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 13 2022, @10:07PM
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday July 14 2022, @03:58AM (2 children)
There is no cognitive dissonance, any more than there is a contradiction in the GPL leading to more and freer software than the BSD license despite having more restrictions up front.
Again: child's. Understanding. You "libertarians" are whiny crybabies in adult bodies. Shut up and let the actual grownups get on with business. Yes, I am intolerant of your stupidity, because in the long run, societies that don't run on similar stupidity fare better. Die mad :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 14 2022, @11:37AM (1 child)
That's a non sequitur. I already pointed out the cognitive dissonance you refuse to acknowledge or perhaps even to understand.
In other words, here's a great example of the bigotry and intolerance you bring to the table. One of many problems with your argument is that you aren't the actual grownup either. Someone else does that.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday July 15 2022, @09:09AM
I'm intolerance of intolerance, and I never, you may notice, claimed to be especially tolerant myself. Eat shit, die, go to Hell, and when you get to Hell, eat flaming shit :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Wednesday July 13 2022, @12:48PM (9 children)
You may want to elaborate on why it is. Preferably with something a bit more substantial than a random post on a random board.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 13 2022, @10:42PM (8 children)
Like what? The New York Times? As to the alleged randomness, neither the post or board were random. Rather than go on about something this ridiculous, how about I just quote it this time so that it is this non-random post on this non-random board?
So what do you think? Would assaulting you with fists or pistols be legitimate discourse? When the scenarios are this ludicrous, the conclusions necessarily are as well.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Thursday July 14 2022, @12:34PM (7 children)
But that is exactly the effect. You tolerate it when people preach hate and intolerance against others, it will eventually lead to violence.
Julius Streicher [wikipedia.org] argued in his trial at Nuernberg that he never caused any harm to any Jews because he never actively hurt a single one. And this is true. He never murdered a single Jew. All he did, week after week, was to tell everyone who wanted to hear it in his newspaper Der Stürmer [wikipedia.org] that Germany could never be free as long as there is a single Jew alive, and what inhumane atrocities the Jews bring to everyone whose path they cross.
I guess he should not have been strung up after the war?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 14 2022, @12:41PM (6 children)
Then they go to jail. I'm comfortable with the process.
And he is right. What he did shouldn't have been a war crime.
Indeed.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Opportunist on Thursday July 14 2022, @01:38PM (5 children)
So him being a considerable part of the incitement and indoctrination to the biggest atrocity in the history of mankind does not matter, because only those that actually kill matter.
Do you seriously not understand how this is a crucial part of why this could actually happen? Do you really think the Holocaust would have been possible without?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 15 2022, @02:29AM (4 children)
Indeed. You got it right.
That is irrelevant - because he didn't actually commit the Holocaust. Should we jail all the people who helped build Nazi-era railcars or lay track as well? Their efforts were crucial as well.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Friday July 15 2022, @09:45AM (3 children)
So someone ordering a murder should go free while only the one pulling the trigger goes to jail?
Asking for a friend...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 16 2022, @12:01AM (2 children)
Now show how that is relevant.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Saturday July 16 2022, @09:25AM (1 child)
What you're saying here is that someone enticing people to commit mass genocide is free of guilt, as long as he himself does not kill anyone. That's pretty much what Streicher did. We, as a society, agreed, though, that enticing a single person to commit a single murder already constitutes the same crime as pulling the trigger yourself.
Do you understand now?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 16 2022, @11:05AM
The thing is that should be legal. "Enticing" is not incitement [wikipedia.org], nor coordinating, nor actual commission. It's some crazy idiot speaking. If you look at the actual charges, Streicher went well beyond the speech of enticement such as ordering the destruction of a large synagogue and probably participating directly [wikipedia.org] in various other crimes against Jews.
Streicher was an extreme vilely and odious character. And he did indeed commit various crimes once he achieved some real power. But enticement to genocide is way too vague to turn into a criminal charge especially were it to get into the hands of an adventurous prosecutor. Am I enticing you to genocide by not fully supporting your argument about Streicher? Or by having the wrong opinion on a number of other issues of the day here?
TL;DR: I don't think enticement to commit genocide is or should be a real crime in the first place. It's way too disengaged from the actual crime. And second, it's too vague as a crime, depending more on how far a prosecutor is willing to go than the actual deed.