Support NeoGAF

[partyphone]

please don't stalk people on the internet. just read his posts here in this thread. it's obvious he's a gator and I fucked up by not ignoring him earlier I apologize.

 

[Oersted]

Dude, those are the TOP PAGES that appear when you Google about it. I'm not pushing any damn agenda, I'm trying to READ MORE ABOUT IT and discuss it with others who have a different opinion that I'm INTERESTED IN KNOWING ABOUT.

Jesus Christ, is this seriously how you treat anyone who comes in asking about something?

Yes, my first post was confrontational with the image of Randi telling people to set themselves on fire. Everything I had experienced up to that point only showed that screengrab. People here told me there was 2nd side, I asked for more information, and you try to witch hunt me by going through archives of my personal history on other websites, only to show, what exactly? That I met a celebrity in LA? Holy shit, man.

They are not top pages for me. You have a worrisome filterbubble.

Anyway, don't use rightwing extremist sites as a proof, except you wanna show how shit they are.

Edit: Well nevermind

 

[APF]

"I have no vested interest in this but I happen to be incredibly well-versed in the talking points of one particular side" does not seem credible to me personally.

 

[Dongs Macabre]

Wow, you're really creepy and have issues.

I'll admit that I made a mistake posting that if he's not a gator, and I regret doing so. I don't want to witch hunt or anything, but I just see too many gators concern troll on GAF in these types of threads. He seemed like the typical gator troll so I looked up his username and found those posts. I guess I was trying to blow some steam after over a year of seeing stuff like this, and I apologize if what I did was wrong.

 

[Palette Swap]

Why the fuck are we going all Stasi on people ?
I think bringing up Randi Lee Harper reacting the way she did was at best a misguided gotcha but that doesn't mean we need to have a shitshow about that particular argument.

I'm not done with the paper, but it makes the point that if anything, having a more benevolent online environment would help lay the groundwork to normalize relationships between people. In that regard, I'm fairly certain Harper would be a lot more courteous if she didn't have to shovel barrels of rancid shit every time she opens her Twitter timeline. That's the long and short of why it's disingenuous to call her a harasser.

But I don't think you help foster that kind of safe online environment when you're going all secret police on anyone you (and I) disagree with. At the very least, we have mods, they've been expertly paddling through the gg river of shit for quite some time now, I'm fairly certain they don't need us throwing accusations to do whatever's necessary.

Edit: welp, the mods have spoken. See?

 

[aeolist]

i don't see why there would even be credible links discussing randi harper's treatment of twitter randos. the only reason anyone would find that notable would be if they had an axe to grind with her.

look at her timeline. she doesn't seek out innocent third parties and harass them, she just responds acerbically to some individual members of the endless mobs that have been coming at her for over a year.

 

[kd-z]

I'm a lvl 53 Social Justice Holy Priest and it feels like my Social Justice party is really screwing up in this raid.

Some of you guys obviously have deep knowledge of what went on between Wadhwa and Randi, why don't you inform the guy?

edit: well, he just got banned

 

[Yoshi]

What's going on here now?
1. Why is it important if Randi is an asshole who writes childish shit like "go set yourself on fire"? Again, if this is the harrassment we are talking about, my position on this kind of harrassment is: If you can't deal with such trivial stuff, don't engage in online discourse. Or any discourse outside very well selected audiences whatsoever.
2. Also, is it important, if Randi is a sexist? That's at least what I got from the quoted review. She want on a personal crusade on Amazon, posting some sexist stuff, got seemingly called out for this a lot and responded by spouting aggressive junk. No one was really hurt, I cannot see any violence here. Also nothing that qualifies or disqualifies her from speaking about harassment.
3. Now on the other hand, the people arguing against the Randi accusations - di you ever step back and read what you have written there? This whole line of arguing, basically completely focussing on discrediting the other party, without giving any relevant arguments is embarassing. The guy quoted Breitbart - I don't know much about that site - other than the name sounds funny from a German perspective - but I have seen no argument why everything that's written on Breitbart is necessarily wrong. Since the twitter timeline should be readily accessible, why don't you just show what you mean instead of insulting the other party?

 

[crimsonheadGCN]

This doesn't have anything to do with Wadhwa. Randi tweeted out this regarding the @GoogleIdeas tweet:

So a few of those who retweeted that, decided to delete the retweets so that they no longer got harassed. Milo (of Breitbart) wrote this:

 

[APF]

Breitbart is the kind of site that spends more time consulting with their lawyers to see what they can't get away with, than they do writing and researching their stories.

 

[randomengine]

This is what baffles me about the whole gamergate thing.

I understand the roots of the original movement (nefarious personal revenge).
I understand the roots of the current movement (men's rights, conservatism).
I understand the smoke screen (It's about ethics in games journalism).
I understand the tactics (muddy the waters).
I understand the collateral damage (people who fall for any of the above).

What I don't understand is why gamers who actually just care about ethics in games journalism don't adopt a different moniker, coalesce around that moniker, and shed the conservatism and bigotry that wants to tag along.

This way the people who actually care about that stuff would have a completely clean platform to do it from. Seriously, what the fuck does conservatism and the term "SJW" have to do with ethics in games journalism?

 

[Freshmaker]

Ok, that could relate.

What year was the original incident?
Did anyone take credit for causing the swatting?
The gaffers that didn't object - do they object to other harassment? Have they since been banned? Are they the same people who also don't object to this-threads sort of harassment?

Nobody was banned in that thread.

 

[aeolist]

This is what baffles me about the whole gamergate thing.

I understand the roots of the original movement (nefarious personal revenge).
I understand the roots of the current movement (men's rights, conservatism).
I understand the smoke screen (It's about ethics in games journalism).
I understand the tactics (muddy the waters).
I understand the collateral damage (people who fall for any of the above).

What I don't understand is why gamers who actually just care about ethics in games journalism don't adopt a different moniker, coalesce around that moniker, and shed the conservatism and bigotry that wants to tag along.

This way the people who actually care about that stuff would have a completely clean platform to do it from. Seriously, what the fuck does conservatism and the term "skeleton" have to do with ethics in games journalism?

after the first month or two the only people left in the group were the unrepentant shitheads. nobody in gamergate actually cares about game journalism, it's just a way to point like-minded regressive abusers at common targets.

 

[weemadarthur]

Nobody was banned in that thread.

Ok. (When was this? I'm not going searching cause I didn't bring it up.)

Do you personally feel that moderation on gaf was being inconsistently applied for similar behavior, depending on the poster's...say...political viewpoint? If so, did you report any posts at the time, as specified in the TOS?

 

[randomengine]

after the first month or two the only people left in the group were the unrepentant shitheads. nobody in gamergate actually cares about game journalism, it's just a way to point like-minded regressive abusers at common targets.

They remind me of that kid in school, the one you know that hates your guts. The goal was to be as shitty a human being as possible to you without getting in trouble for it. So they try to act nice (or faux nice) when the teacher is around, but behind the teacher's back will be a real shitbird - because that is their true feelings. They just want to make your life miserable.

The internet being what it is, they have to be vigilant at all times, which means adopting an ultra passive-aggressive attitude designed to provide cover if any authorities take a look at the discussion.

I am glad I am no longer in high school.

 

[Keio]

The replies to those tweets - holy hell. That's a deep rabbit hole of hatred.

They remind me a lot of a racist political party in my country that always act like the victim to gain sympathy (I guess?). They are constantly trying to appear like the victim and seek sympathy from the unknowing public, when they are just awful and hateful human beings.

Finland by any chance?

I think it's appalling that we've reached the point where people are criticizing these ladies for going to the UN to bring up an issue that is threatening careers of the people who are supposed to build our future. If people fear GG-like harassment we will have less and less individuals challenging the status quo and our development will stagnate.

 

[Messofanego]

This is what baffles me about the whole gamergate thing.

I understand the roots of the original movement (nefarious personal revenge).
I understand the roots of the current movement (men's rights, conservatism).
I understand the smoke screen (It's about ethics in games journalism).
I understand the tactics (muddy the waters).
I understand the collateral damage (people who fall for any of the above).

What I don't understand is why gamers who actually just care about ethics in games journalism don't adopt a different moniker, coalesce around that moniker, and shed the conservatism and bigotry that wants to tag along.

This way the people who actually care about that stuff would have a completely clean platform to do it from. Seriously, what the fuck does conservatism and the term "SJW" have to do with ethics in games journalism?

That's because they really don't care about games journalism, it's just an intro to congregate with like minded people who hate certain people and want to troll and abuse. They've formed friends and don't want to lose that, their united hatred of people and of certain things has given their life finally some purpose.

In fact, if they actually care, they should focus more on the Youtuber scandals and corruption which go unchecked because it's not as standardised a system with checks and balances.

XB1M13. And Battlefield 4. And Shadow of Mordor. Youtubers and Streamers promoting G2A, a shady key reseller.

Like Youtubers demanding to be paid $22,000 for game coverage. Or getting paid $30,000 to promote Xbox One.

http://metro.co.uk/2015/09/11/youtuber-wanted-14000-to-mention-indie-game-5386855/

‘On one of my normal PR rounds I received an email from a very popular YouTuber, with a few million subscribers, offering to have one of our games featured on their YouTube channel for a rate of either $17,600 (£11,411) for two to three talking points or $22,000 (£14,265) for two to three talking points AND a description link,’ wrote environment artist Ben Tester on Reddit.

A FTC investigation in the US recently revealed that top YouTubers Syndicate and SkyVsGaming were paid up to $30,000 (£19,639) by Microsoft’s advertising agent to promote the Xbox One launch.

The lack of regulation on YouTube has created concern that videos are often being created solely as paid-for advertising, which the presenters then pass off as independent coverage.​

 

[viveks86]

They are speaking at the UN?! Holy shit. That's pretty freaking awesome. Didn't think the issue would get that much spotlight so early.

 

[Freshmaker]

Ok. (When was this? I'm not going searching cause I didn't bring it up.)

Do you personally feel that moderation on gaf was being inconsistently applied for similar behavior, depending on the poster's...say...political viewpoint? If so, did you report any posts at the time, as specified in the TOS?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1070003&highlight=dsp+swatted

See for yourself and spare me the inquisition.

 

[weemadarthur]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1070003&highlight=dsp+swatted

See for yourself and spare me the inquisition.

Haha. I am to look up the background you pointed out? And then am I to formulate your argument in this thread?

It is not an inquisition to ask you to back up claims, form cogent arguments, and defend your point of view. It is, in fact, supposed to be a minimum for posting.

 

[Freshmaker]

Haha. I am to look up the background you pointed out? And then am I to formulate your argument in this thread?

It is not an inquisition to ask you to back up claims, form cogent arguments, and defend your point of view. It is, in fact, supposed to be a minimum for posting.

Given that you're inventing my claims and guiding the discussion however you like to fit your preconceived agenda, it's kinda pointless to bother.

"LOL. I gotta read what you post?!? That's not my job!"

 

[weemadarthur]

Given that you're inventing my claims and guiding the discussion however you like to fit your preconceived agenda, it's kinda pointless to bother.

"LOL. I gotta read what you post?!? That's not my job!"

I'm not inventing your claims. I have no idea what you're getting at with anything you've said yet. That's the point of asking you what you're saying. Otherwise it feels like you expect me to read your mind.

What is my preconceived agenda? You must be better than I am at mind reading.

Oh, I READ the thread you posted. All of it. I just don't understand what you're using it to prove.
-I saw 2 posters who said an online attack was deserved. While they may not be currently banned, it is very possible that they were back when they posted it in June.
-A bunch of people who posted in the thread are currently banned, indicating a problem with their posting behavior somewhere.
-A lot of people posted just to express that severe online harassment was bad, full stop.
-At least an equal number, maybe more, posted that severe online harassment was bad, even if they didn't like the personality of the victim.

None of the thread supports your statement that neogaf posters were "perfectly cool" with the harassment. So what point ARE you trying to make?

 

[leadbelly]

"The report argues that rigorous oversight and enforcement of rules banning cyber VAWG on the Internet will be an essential foundation stone if the Internet is to become a safe, respectful and empowering space for women and girls, and, by extension, for boys and men."

Thats a tall order, moderating a forum is one thing but the entire web and social networks? An article from the Washington Posts raises some interesting points.

"Under U.S. law — the law that, not coincidentally, governs most of the world’s largest online platforms — intermediaries such as Twitter and Facebook generally can’t be held responsible for what people do on them. But the United Nations proposes both that social networks proactively police every profile and post, and that government agencies only “license” those who agree to do so.." ~ No. You can ban users who breach terms of use but profiling and policing is a big no no. I know that profiling does go on behind the scenes but its mostly for advertising (I would hope). Id hate for big sites to use it for things like this (social issues/opinions). The last thing we need is profiles with "bigot", "liberal" or "racist" tags.

"How that would actually work, we don’t know; the report is light on concrete, actionable policy. But it repeatedly suggests both that social networks need to opt-in to stronger anti-harassment regimes and that governments need to enforce them proactively." ~ OK if we are talking about legitimate harassment (doxxing, death threats, revenge porn) . Anything else would be subjective and could be easily abused.

"At one point toward the end of the paper, the U.N. panel concludes that “political and governmental bodies need to use their licensing prerogative” to better protect human and women’s rights, only granting licenses to “those Telecoms and search engines” that “supervise content and its dissemination.”" ~ I cant see this taking off, and to be honest I wouldn't want it too.

"In other words, the United Nations believes that online platforms should be (a) generally responsible for the actions of their users and (b) specifically responsible for making sure those people aren’t harassers." ~ Part b is worrisome, these networks should profile users to that extent.

"This U.N. report gets us no closer, alas: all but its most modest proposals are unfeasible. We can educate people about gender violence or teach “digital citizenship” in schools, but persuading social networks to police everything their users post is next to impossible." ~ I agree

"Is a reckoning — or at least rebalancing — imminent? The United Nations suggests it has to be. But it certainly won’t look like the model dreamt up in this report. For better or worse, that’s several steps too revolutionary." ~ I agree

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...future-of-the-web/?postshare=2461443164984121
Yes, they refer to Breitbart at one point but don't use that as an excuse to dismiss the entire article.

That's an interesting article. Thanks for that.

One thing I have been interested about is the reason for why the Establishment has embraced these causes so much. Quite cynically in some ways. So for example you had the NSA championing Gay rights, and GCHQ draping itself in rainbow colours. It's hard not to see these gestures as a cynical attempt to change their image. In one sense it is an illusion of radical change, while in the reality not changing the power structures all that much. By that I mean society is still run like a plutocracy with only a small percentage of people having any real influence on decision making. It's not like they would promote revolutionary communism for example, because obviously that is a real threat and danger to the current power structures. Not that I think that is necessarily the way forward, only that 'true' radical politics is a threat to any government. They will seek to shut such movements down rather than promote them. And to be honest, things like the economic downturn for instance, especially back in 2008, would have had some in power nervous. There were 'rumblings' of a real movement back then. I'm sure it suits them in some respects to have radical politics in this small little corner over here. It is manageable.

It may sound quite conspiratorial, and perhaps it is, but I think we should be wary of governments using this as a way of justifying their encroachment on civil liberties and in terms of the internet, seeking to impose greater power over it. Obviously we already know with the Snowden leaks the extent in which they have already gone in controlling the internet.

Maybe the approach they take with online harassment won't be so extreme, but if it does go that far, I hope there will be significant resistance against it.

 

[DICKS AHOY]

If it's already obvious someone's concern trolling to derail a GG-themed topic I'm not sure what the point of Googling their profiles to '6 Degrees' them back to a r/KiA post proves. I can't disagree with people saying that's a bit creepy and stalkerish.

 

[Freshmaker]

I'm not inventing your claims. I have no idea what you're getting at with anything you've said yet. That's the point of asking you what you're saying. Otherwise it feels like you expect me to read your mind.

What is my preconceived agenda? You must be better than I am at mind reading.

Oh, I READ the thread you posted. All of it. I just don't understand what you're using it to prove.
-I saw 2 posters who said an online attack was deserved. While they may not be currently banned, it is very possible that they were back when they posted it in June.
-A bunch of people who posted in the thread are currently banned, indicating a problem with their posting behavior somewhere.
-A lot of people posted just to express that severe online harassment was bad, full stop.
-At least an equal number, maybe more, posted that severe online harassment was bad, even if they didn't like the personality of the victim.

None of the thread supports your statement that neogaf posters were "perfectly cool" with the harassment. So what point ARE you trying to make?

Perhaps you should I dunno... Go back and read the post you initially replied to. You know, the one where I replied to someone who issued the claim that ending harassment online for women naturally would mean that men would be covered as well?

I pointed to DSP, a routine target for organized online harassment as an example of the disparate support networks already in place.

One does not necessarily cover the other as the initial claim posited.

Your responses illustrate my position rather well. Somehow that's my fault and linking the claim to my response is magically impossible while you busily play mod.

 

[JeffG]

If it's already obvious someone's concern trolling to derail a GG-themed topic I'm not sure what the point of Googling their profiles to '6 Degrees' them back to a r/KiA post proves. I can't disagree with people saying that's a bit creepy and stalkerish.

I kinda like it.

Being anonymous is what empowers the trolls.

Take that away from them, then hopefully they are scared to show themselves. They can go crawl back under their rock (where they should be)

 

[Cabbagehead]

Its funny that they are going to the UN to talk about this issue. But have no idea what would be in the future for the internet, they would most likely make it much worse or whether that harassment is a by product of how free the internet is.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

This is what baffles me about the whole gamergate thing.

I understand the roots of the original movement (nefarious personal revenge).
I understand the roots of the current movement (men's rights, conservatism).
I understand the smoke screen (It's about ethics in games journalism).
I understand the tactics (muddy the waters).
I understand the collateral damage (people who fall for any of the above).

What I don't understand is why gamers who actually just care about ethics in games journalism don't adopt a different moniker, coalesce around that moniker, and shed the conservatism and bigotry that wants to tag along.

This way the people who actually care about that stuff would have a completely clean platform to do it from. Seriously, what the fuck does conservatism and the term "SJW" have to do with ethics in games journalism?

It's primarily due to Fight or Flight Syndrome mixed with an ignorant or naive view of reality. You'd be surprised exactly how many people have the mindset of "it doesn't mater if that guy is a sexist, he's still a gamer and I need to protect him". A guy actually tweeted once that he's okay with Nazis being in GamerGate because that shows how open-minded a group it is. Hell, we've had GAF members express that the only reason they are in GamerGater is because of "identity".

 

[weemadarthur]

Perhaps you should I dunno... Go back and read the post you initially replied to. You know, the one where I replied to someone who issued the claim that ending harassment online for women naturally would mean that men would be covered as well?

I pointed to DSP, a routine target for organized online harassment as an example of the disparate support networks already in place.

One does not necessarily cover the other as the initial claim posited.

Your responses illustrate my position rather well. Somehow that's my fault and linking the claim to my response is magically impossible while you busily play mod.

So...your point is that the person/people who swatted DSP are a different subset of people than those who harass other people online? I don't see where they were caught by authorities though. The threat would need to be traced, and that user's internet history traced, to have real data whether s/he has spent a lot of time abusing multiple people online. Or whether they've never attacked less severely, and this is the very first time they've done anything offensive. I simply suspect, that there is a long internet history of abuse that includes, possibly concentrates on, female targets. If the individual had done that, but been sanctioned, they may never have had the opportunity to swat anyone.

Obviously that is completely speculative. But it is my hypothesis. I believe the behavior is escalating over time, and that stopping it earlier would resolve a lot of the most severe issues. I also suspect that a high percentage of these abusers target both genders, but spend more time targeting women than men.

 

[StrangeTaco]

Man had no idea this kind of harassment was so common with women, thought it was mostly just a false stereotype. Really sad that people can't just be decent to each other.

OT: I'm almost impressed with how off the rails this thread went.

Edit: Thought I'd preemptively add this just in case someone takes my post the wrong way. Never have associated myself with GG or anything like that I just did not pay much attention to this issue.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

thought it was mostly just a false stereotype.

Welcome to reality. Glad to have you.

 

[Freshmaker]

So...your point is that the person/people who swatted DSP are a different subset of people than those who harass other people online?

Unless you think Gamergate is also targeting DSP in the form of Kojima World Order, it's a reasonable conclusion to draw.

Though they do share similar rhetoric.

 

[weemadarthur]

Unless you think Gamergate is also targeting DSP in the form of Kojima World Order, it's a reasonable conclusion to draw.

Though they do share similar rhetoric.

It would not surprise me in any way if they were the same individual humans. Especially if they share similar rhetoric; some programs exist to attempt to identify authorship based on wording etc. I'd be quite interested to see this world order group analyzed in comparison to gamergate.

 

[TwEE-N-Toast]

I kinda like it.

Being anonymous is what empowers the trolls.

Take that away from them, then hopefully they are scared to show themselves. They can go crawl back under their rock (where they should be)

You cool with posting your personal information here for all to see?

 

[Hackworth]

Like TwEE-N-Toast is saying, we don't want to encourage doxxing even if it's against chumps. It's just a bad general principle.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

This is what baffles me about the whole gamergate thing.

I understand the roots of the original movement (nefarious personal revenge).
I understand the roots of the current movement (men's rights, conservatism).
I understand the smoke screen (It's about ethics in games journalism).
I understand the tactics (muddy the waters).
I understand the collateral damage (people who fall for any of the above).

What I don't understand is why gamers who actually just care about ethics in games journalism don't adopt a different moniker, coalesce around that moniker, and shed the conservatism and bigotry that wants to tag along.

This way the people who actually care about that stuff would have a completely clean platform to do it from. Seriously, what the fuck does conservatism and the term "SJW" have to do with ethics in games journalism?

For some context, the long running "game journalism" thread on GAF became an absolute conspiratorial mess during the first weeks of Gamergate.
What used to be a rational discussion about big websites getting paid off by companies and other legitimate concerns just got spammed with often contrary or not factually correct conspiratorial red line theories about how SJW/DIGRA/FEMINISZTZ had infiltrated gaming and were corrupt.

For a comparison, it's like having a conversation about ethics and issues in the pharmaceutical industry & suddenly finding that half the people who decided to show up are anti-vaccers & a handful of aids-denialists.

Even the people who didn't join GG due to the Zoe stuff generally joined because they were mad about the "gamers are over" articles which they misinterpreted as the biggest insult against gamers ever. It had very little to do with actual issues beyond "omg this insults me!"

..


On the doxxing/internet stalking business, I think it's only fair game to cross-reference other GAF posts by another person (and only in exceptional situations where the post seems very relevant, not just to smear); (Like the legendary post search that got Amir0x demodded)

Going off of gaf to search for dirt anywhere on the internet seems creepy & reminds me way too much of the way harassers often try to find the 3-4 bad things someone's ever said or done to discredit them.
The moderation team isn't blind to people arguing in bad faith or using really bad quality talking points from websites like Breibart & will deal with posters that cross the lines of honest good-faith discussion, there's no need for posters to go on an internet hunt over it.

I've actually had people who disagree with me on GAF find me on twitter to try and argue with me there, which has creeped me the fuck out in the past, so the off-site history digging leaves me with a bad taste.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

I've actually had people who disagree with me on GAF find me on twitter to try and argue with me there, which has creeped me the fuck out in the past, so the off-site history digging leaves me with a bad taste.

It always amazes me how Gators will go off on random nobodies for saying *anything* negative about GamerGate or anything GamerGate related. My favorites are the ones that are blatantly trying to get others to dox you.

 

[hsikod]

Can't imagine many better

Yeah. Fuck those PhDs in gender studies and sociology. Let's listen the girls who plays video games.

 

[SZips]

Yeah. Fuck those PhDs in gender studies and sociology. Let's listen the girls who plays video games.

So the people that have had first hand experience as victims of online harassment... aren't qualified to give a talk about online harassment or ways of combating it.

This is what you're saying.

Wow.

Also, I'm really not so sure that this group of women are the only ones that have ever, or will ever, talk to those in power about this problem. Just a wild, crazy hunch. I'm going to make an absolutely crazy assumption here and say that those with "PhDs in gender studies and sociology" and whatnot, will have plenty to say about this as well if they haven't already said tons.

 

[andrerobot]

Yeah. Fuck those PhDs in gender studies and sociology. Let's listen the girls who plays video games.

no no no, leave that bullshit out.

they are part of a bigger panel, and they're not there because hurr durr vidya, they're there because of them being high profile targets of harassment.


EDIT: he was so young!! why!!?

 

[Fahrenheit]

Safeguards – Implementing oversight and maintaining a responsible Internet infrastructure through technical solutions and more informed customer care practices

Might be my inner tin foil hat coming out but that sounds a lot like killing what little privacy is left on the internet. Not down for that at all.

 

[Shrike_Priest]

Might be my inner tin foil hat coming out but that sounds a lot like killing what little privacy is left on the internet. Not down for that at all.

Guaranteed anonymity is problematic though.

I see the human rights arguments for free speech and whatnot, but there are real legitimate issues with lack of accountability.

Safeguards doesn't necessarily mean companies having to hand out identifiable data to third parties. However, if that's off the table due to privacy concerns, then rigorous banning/reporting systems need to be in place and be enforced. And they need to be more flexible and efficient than they are now.

Death threats, hate campaigns, harassment is a real thing. It's not reasonable for us as a society not to try and work against it.

The ideal thing would be something like really, really, really, smart language analysis, cross references between posters, posting-pattern analysis (dogpile-detection) etc. coupled with reporting systems that actually work. These need to be worked on, and there needs to be incentives to work on them (as it is now, Twitter doesn't really have an economic interest in stopping that kind of behavior, right?). If we get that in place, it might discourage some of it.

And yes, if someone threatens the life of someone else online, there ought to be a way for the FBI to track that person down. The counter-argument is that identifiable data might be abused by governments or criminals. And I buy that. The thing is that it's been shown time and time again that if a government or criminal wants to hack their way in, they will. I don't think the general population will be protected by having legislation set up road blocks to identify criminal activity online. Corrupt government and criminals will bypass those roadblocks anyway.

I'm not saying it's clear cut. But the status quo just isn't cutting it. The better the anti-harassment tech gets, the less intrusive to personal privacy the legislation has to be. But there's very little incentive to produce those kinds of solutions without government/UN initiatives.

 

[AlimNassor]

Harassment online is epidemic. Be you man or woman, if you say something that people hate you will be harassed.

 

[tonysidaway]

Predictably any thread like this here is going to get a little bogged down. Here's some background to bring it back to the real world.


1. The Broadband Commission was set up in 2010 as a joint initiative by UNESCO and the ITU, to promote the building of the global digital society.

2. In 2012 the Commission set up the Working Group on Broadband and Gender, to promote gender inclusion in the online society.

3. As well as bureaucrats from the UN and from organisations such as CISCO, Microsoft, Ericsson, and so on, the membership also includes invited representatives of organisations with related aims, including the US State Department and several women's advocacy groups with a focus on the internet.

4. September 24, 2015 was the fourth meeting of the Working Group. They released a report on cyber violence against women and girls (CVAWG), which you can read:

http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/reports/bb-wg-gender-report2015.pdf

5. Among a number of invited participants in a moderated discussion were Anita Sarkeesian of Feminist Frequency and Zoe Quinn in her capacity as a CVAWG survivor  and the Cofounder of Crash Override Network.

You can read more here:

http://www.broadbandcommission.org/events/Pages/4th-WG-G-Meeting.aspx

 

[Andrew J.]

BANS FOR THE BAN GOD!

GRAY NAMES FOR THE GRAY NAME THRONE!

 

[crimsonheadGCN]

Topic on KiA: Don't listen to the leftist lies: both Zoe and Anita (assuming she is a citizen of the United States) have committed a felony by explicitly and directly lobbying foreign governments for the abolition of Net Neutrality and the "licensing" of internet content providers.

 

[Temporal Mess]

Just when I think they can't get any more delusional...

 

[Zabi]

So, the time has finally come to talk about THEM. Shall we start with the Patriots or the Illuminati?

 

[Fat4all]

Wow. Woooooooow.

Do these people carry around a spray bottle of vinegar, too?

 

[John Kowalski]

i knew it, fucking reptilians are EVERYWHERE