I don't wanna live in a world where reciting a Louis CK joke or a Misfits lyric could get me arrested or fined by some culture-less swine who doesn't understand. There have to be provisions for hyperbole and sarcasm and art, otherwise 1984 comes true.
I like the idea of applying current harassment/stalking/hate-speech/whatever laws to the internet. I'm not a lawyer so maybe they'd need some rejiggering, but I think it's a decent idea to start with.
People always go so self-righteous on this point, calling on the ghost of George Orwell to ward off evil, but I mean you already realize that when you go out in public your speech is greatly curtailed, right?
Like I love Louis CK as much as the next lady, but if I went quoting his rape jokes at work I'd probably be put under discipline and that's not a bad thing.
Similarly, if you went to a bar and started yelling "Compulsively you'll die... I hate people!" a bouncer would have your butt out the door in short order, no matter how cultured you are.
Yet, he was talking about on the internet. Just how many times do you think somebody responds to a post with a cribbed joke or a lyric?
You've heard about the kid who sarcastically posted he was going to do some sort of violence (complete with 'lol')? Well, they're going after him for making a terrorist threat because some adult saw that he lived near an elementary school.
Nuance on the internet is quite difficult to pull off. Reactionary bullshit in real life is quite easy. It's certainly a wondrous time we live in.
I don't wanna live in a world where reciting a Louis CK joke or a Misfits lyric could get me arrested or fined by some culture-less swine who doesn't understand. There have to be provisions for hyperbole and sarcasm and art, otherwise 1984 comes true.
I like the idea of applying current harassment/stalking/hate-speech/whatever laws to the internet. I'm not a lawyer so maybe they'd need some rejiggering, but I think it's a decent idea to start with.
People always go so self-righteous on this point, calling on the ghost of George Orwell to ward off evil, but I mean you already realize that when you go out in public your speech is greatly curtailed, right?
Like I love Louis CK as much as the next lady, but if I went quoting his rape jokes at work I'd probably be put under discipline and that's not a bad thing.
Similarly, if you went to a bar and started yelling "Compulsively you'll die... I hate people!" a bouncer would have your butt out the door in short order, no matter how cultured you are.
Also there's a lot of context applied to people like Louis CK and what they say and when they say it.
Folks may not like it, but reality is, just because you heard Louis CK say it, doesn't mean it's ok for you to say it, out of context, and out of it's proper setting.
Louis CK, watch some interviews with him, that aren't like Conan 'interviews' where he's just doing part of his act, but like sit down, talk Paley type stuff. Dude doesn't really say the things he says in his acts in normal conversation; and in fact actually often walks back things he says in the sense that he's pulling back the curtain and showing you the reality of the exaggerated story he tells in his shows (for instance, the infamous 'people are never happy with anything in an amazing world' story, that he later said was actually about him and not anyone else; his jokes are often self criticism veiled as rants about society). He's actually a level headed responsible, respectful (to others) guy.
So yeah, you can't just be "well I heard Carlin say it, so I'm free to say this whenever, and wherever I want, to whomever I want". That's just not how life works. Well, I mean, you can, but there are consequences that you have to accept to doing so.
Part of this comes to the understanding of what comedy, or music, or movies, books, all that, what they actually are doing. Actors in a movie get away with 'murder' because it's not actually murder, they're portraying something to evoke ideas of opinions that would otherwise be too difficult to communicate with words (without proper literary techniques often employed by good authors in books or news). Likewise Louis CK is saying things in a context (i.e. his show, his act) that aren't intended to be said by anyone anywhere, but are said in a way by him to convey ideas in a manner that will help some people understand, other people cope, etc. And so on with music, television, etc.
My overall point being, the fact you can't say random horrible shit in public whenever and wherever you want isn't a matter, necessarily of some sort of censorship or oppressive thought police. It's simply because that's how society works. You temper your words, and sometimes even your thoughts, for the benefit of others, which in turn benefits you when everything works well. That's not to say 'sit down and shut up', it just is to say 'don't yell fire in a theater because that's being a fucking dick'.
EDIT: and yes, the internet is a different social beast right now; but as privacy diminishes on the internet to come more into line with normal real world privacy (i.e. you may be a face in the crowd, but you still have a face, and people can and will recognize it and you will be accountable for what you say and do), I think the internet will (hopefully?) also start to come into line with something resembling a normal functional society, of which it currently isn't. I just don't think "well it's the internet" is something that will hold water a lot longer in civil discourse.
I don't wanna live in a world where reciting a Louis CK joke or a Misfits lyric could get me arrested or fined by some culture-less swine who doesn't understand. There have to be provisions for hyperbole and sarcasm and art, otherwise 1984 comes true.
I like the idea of applying current harassment/stalking/hate-speech/whatever laws to the internet. I'm not a lawyer so maybe they'd need some rejiggering, but I think it's a decent idea to start with.
People always go so self-righteous on this point, calling on the ghost of George Orwell to ward off evil, but I mean you already realize that when you go out in public your speech is greatly curtailed, right?
Like I love Louis CK as much as the next lady, but if I went quoting his rape jokes at work I'd probably be put under discipline and that's not a bad thing.
Similarly, if you went to a bar and started yelling "Compulsively you'll die... I hate people!" a bouncer would have your butt out the door in short order, no matter how cultured you are.
Yet, he was talking about on the internet. Just how many times do you think somebody responds to a post with a cribbed joke or a lyric?
You've heard about the kid who sarcastically posted he was going to do some sort of violence (complete with 'lol')? Well, they're going after him for making a terrorist threat because some adult saw that he lived near an elementary school.
Nuance on the internet is quite difficult to pull off. Reactionary bullshit in real life is quite easy. It's certainly a wondrous time we live in.
Well this is part of the problem, though. You, and others, see the internet as "my own room in my apartment I pay rent on" (or wherever), when the reality is that the internet has a lot more similarity to that public bar or a public park. You're not actually in a private room saying things that no one will hear, you're in a public forum declaring things that hundreds of people can see, and your words will probably be archived for a good long while.
"It's the internet." is used as the excuse, as if that explains away everything. Because we've gotten used to the fact that this particular public space has people threatening other people constantly and that's OK for some reason, when it's not OK in any other public space we know of, including over the telephone.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
I don't wanna live in a world where reciting a Louis CK joke or a Misfits lyric could get me arrested or fined by some culture-less swine who doesn't understand. There have to be provisions for hyperbole and sarcasm and art, otherwise 1984 comes true.
I like the idea of applying current harassment/stalking/hate-speech/whatever laws to the internet. I'm not a lawyer so maybe they'd need some rejiggering, but I think it's a decent idea to start with.
People always go so self-righteous on this point, calling on the ghost of George Orwell to ward off evil, but I mean you already realize that when you go out in public your speech is greatly curtailed, right?
Like I love Louis CK as much as the next lady, but if I went quoting his rape jokes at work I'd probably be put under discipline and that's not a bad thing.
Similarly, if you went to a bar and started yelling "Compulsively you'll die... I hate people!" a bouncer would have your butt out the door in short order, no matter how cultured you are.
Yet, he was talking about on the internet. Just how many times do you think somebody responds to a post with a cribbed joke or a lyric?
You've heard about the kid who sarcastically posted he was going to do some sort of violence (complete with 'lol')? Well, they're going after him for making a terrorist threat because some adult saw that he lived near an elementary school.
Nuance on the internet is quite difficult to pull off. Reactionary bullshit in real life is quite easy. It's certainly a wondrous time we live in.
Hey, at least somebody gets it.
That kid you speak of will likely have his life ruined forever. Because he used the unfortunate tool of sarcasm to say how insane it was to shoot up a school, and that the idea that video games could make you shoot up a school was just as insane.
That is unacceptable, and yet another reason in a long line of reason why I think we desperately need some kind universal sarcasm font or tag, or something. Something unmistakable that could be easily and widely adopted. A forum I used to post on usually used italics for sarcasm, because that's so cool. <-- See? It even looks sarcastic, like the strain of raising an eyebrow pulled the letters to the side a bit.
I don't wanna live in a world where reciting a Louis CK joke or a Misfits lyric could get me arrested or fined by some culture-less swine who doesn't understand. There have to be provisions for hyperbole and sarcasm and art, otherwise 1984 comes true.
I like the idea of applying current harassment/stalking/hate-speech/whatever laws to the internet. I'm not a lawyer so maybe they'd need some rejiggering, but I think it's a decent idea to start with.
People always go so self-righteous on this point, calling on the ghost of George Orwell to ward off evil, but I mean you already realize that when you go out in public your speech is greatly curtailed, right?
Like I love Louis CK as much as the next lady, but if I went quoting his rape jokes at work I'd probably be put under discipline and that's not a bad thing.
Similarly, if you went to a bar and started yelling "Compulsively you'll die... I hate people!" a bouncer would have your butt out the door in short order, no matter how cultured you are.
Yet, he was talking about on the internet. Just how many times do you think somebody responds to a post with a cribbed joke or a lyric?
You've heard about the kid who sarcastically posted he was going to do some sort of violence (complete with 'lol')? Well, they're going after him for making a terrorist threat because some adult saw that he lived near an elementary school.
Nuance on the internet is quite difficult to pull off. Reactionary bullshit in real life is quite easy. It's certainly a wondrous time we live in.
Well this is part of the problem, though. You, and others, see the internet as "my own room in my apartment I pay rent on" (or wherever), when the reality is that the internet has a lot more similarity to that public bar or a public park. You're not actually in a private room saying things that no one will hear, you're in a public forum declaring things that hundreds of people can see, and your words will probably be archived for a good long while.
"It's the internet." is used as the excuse, as if that explains away everything. Because we've gotten used to the fact that this particular public space has people threatening other people constantly and that's OK for some reason, when it's not OK in any other public space we know of, including over the telephone.
You'll want to be careful how you use that royal 'you'. I never stated my views on speech on the internet. I was clarifying his point which your rebuttal didn't have anything to do with addressing.
I know where I am. I know what I can and cannot say. And I know when I can say them.
After all, Carlin once said:
Since when did the phone bill become life's most critical document?
I don't wanna live in a world where reciting a Louis CK joke or a Misfits lyric could get me arrested or fined by some culture-less swine who doesn't understand. There have to be provisions for hyperbole and sarcasm and art, otherwise 1984 comes true.
I like the idea of applying current harassment/stalking/hate-speech/whatever laws to the internet. I'm not a lawyer so maybe they'd need some rejiggering, but I think it's a decent idea to start with.
People always go so self-righteous on this point, calling on the ghost of George Orwell to ward off evil, but I mean you already realize that when you go out in public your speech is greatly curtailed, right?
Like I love Louis CK as much as the next lady, but if I went quoting his rape jokes at work I'd probably be put under discipline and that's not a bad thing.
Similarly, if you went to a bar and started yelling "Compulsively you'll die... I hate people!" a bouncer would have your butt out the door in short order, no matter how cultured you are.
Yet, he was talking about on the internet. Just how many times do you think somebody responds to a post with a cribbed joke or a lyric?
You've heard about the kid who sarcastically posted he was going to do some sort of violence (complete with 'lol')? Well, they're going after him for making a terrorist threat because some adult saw that he lived near an elementary school.
Nuance on the internet is quite difficult to pull off. Reactionary bullshit in real life is quite easy. It's certainly a wondrous time we live in.
Well this is part of the problem, though. You, and others, see the internet as "my own room in my apartment I pay rent on" (or wherever), when the reality is that the internet has a lot more similarity to that public bar or a public park. You're not actually in a private room saying things that no one will hear, you're in a public forum declaring things that hundreds of people can see, and your words will probably be archived for a good long while.
This cuts in both directions though. So, say internet communities are a public place where you have no expectation of privacy. Does that mean it's cool to out all of the trans people who post under psuedoyms on trans support forums? After all, they have no expectation of privacy, they're posting in a public place.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I was addressing "Yet, he was talking about on the internet!" Followed by a rant about how terrible a world it is that people are taken to account for saying whatever they want whenever they want.
"He was talking about on the internet" is not a magic philter that cleanses all speech of potential negative implication.
Just as an example, if you're having a shouting conversation with someone you're angry at and say you're planning to kill someone sarcastically in that conversation, if some old lady a few paces away hears that part and doesn't know enough about you to know if you're being sarcasitc, she may well feel threatened by you. And however much you want to bluster about how it's really the little old lady's fault if your shouting made her feel unsafe, I don't think the law would be on your side, nor do I think it should be. Nor would I be able to understand in a technical sense how this is any different from the same conversation happening on facebook. "LOL INTERNET" is not a reasonable defense.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
+7
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I don't wanna live in a world where reciting a Louis CK joke or a Misfits lyric could get me arrested or fined by some culture-less swine who doesn't understand. There have to be provisions for hyperbole and sarcasm and art, otherwise 1984 comes true.
I like the idea of applying current harassment/stalking/hate-speech/whatever laws to the internet. I'm not a lawyer so maybe they'd need some rejiggering, but I think it's a decent idea to start with.
This assumes that the flagging / reporting system goes without investigation. It's a poor assumption to make. Even then, our system is setup that you can challenge and fight things and provide evidence that yes, that is a Louis CK routine you quoted.
As far as things to watch out for if we pursue legal consequence for shitty things said on the net or outright threats made via the net, this is very low on the totem pole.
I was addressing "Yet, he was talking about on the internet!" Followed by a rant about how terrible a world it is that people are taken to account for saying whatever they want whenever they want.
"He was talking about on the internet" is not a magic philter that cleanses all speech of potential negative implication.
Just as an example, if you're having a shouting conversation with someone you're angry at and say you're planning to kill someone sarcastically in that conversation, if some old lady a few paces away hears that part and doesn't know enough about you to know if you're being sarcasitc, she may well feel threatened by you. And however much you want to bluster about how it's really the little old lady's fault if your shouting made her feel unsafe, I don't think the law would be on your side, nor do I think it should be. Nor would I be able to understand in a technical sense how this is any different from the same conversation happening on facebook. "LOL INTERNET" is not a reasonable defense.
Oh, absolutely not. But context is supremely important in discussions of speech, and especially if you're talking about legality. It plays with the definitions.
So is a forum a private place or a public one? Is it analogous to my living room or to a public park? To be honest, it's not really quite like either, and the systems we have in place for determining whether speech is legally acceptable don't necessarily in an online framework. Is a trans support forum private? Is my Facebook feed considered a private place if I set it so only my friends can see it? Is my Twitter a private place, if I only have 4 followers? Is SA a private place because you have to pay to register, or a public place because there are thousands of goons? Right now, the same system that protects the privacy of people posting on trans support forums also protects the privacy of people on Stormfront and the harassment groups on 4Chan.
Another example: important one aspect of our harassment and libel laws is that it's much much harder to prove harassment or libel when the victim in question is a public figure. This is important, since it protects things like political and social discourse - you don't want a presidential candidate or a rich celebrity to be able to go after all of their critics with the backing of the legal system. However, we now live in a world where anyone can become a public figure at any time, without trying. Maybe tomorrow I'll be the subject of an internet meme and 500,000 people will be sharing some animated .gif of me around, and following my twitter. It's hard to argue that I'm not a public figure at that point, but I also haven't changed anything at all about my life. So at what point in that chain do I become a public figure for legal purposes?
If Justin Carter is any indication, the law's handling of these issues is not going to be very nuanced, and I think that's something that many people have good reason to be wary of. You never really need privacy, until you do, and then you need it very much.
+3
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I was addressing "Yet, he was talking about on the internet!" Followed by a rant about how terrible a world it is that people are taken to account for saying whatever they want whenever they want.
"He was talking about on the internet" is not a magic philter that cleanses all speech of potential negative implication.
Just as an example, if you're having a shouting conversation with someone you're angry at and say you're planning to kill someone sarcastically in that conversation, if some old lady a few paces away hears that part and doesn't know enough about you to know if you're being sarcasitc, she may well feel threatened by you. And however much you want to bluster about how it's really the little old lady's fault if your shouting made her feel unsafe, I don't think the law would be on your side, nor do I think it should be. Nor would I be able to understand in a technical sense how this is any different from the same conversation happening on facebook. "LOL INTERNET" is not a reasonable defense.
Oh, absolutely not. But context is supremely important in discussions of speech, and especially if you're talking about legality. It plays with the definitions.
So is a forum a private place or a public one? Is it analogous to my living room or to a public park? To be honest, it's not really quite like either, and the systems we have in place for determining whether speech is legally acceptable don't necessarily in an online framework. Is a trans support forum private? Is my Facebook feed considered a private place if I set it so only my friends can see it? Is my Twitter a private place, if I only have 4 followers? Is SA a private place because you have to pay to register, or a public place because there are thousands of goons? Right now, the same system that protects the privacy of people posting on trans support forums also protects the privacy of people on Stormfront and the harassment groups on 4Chan.
Another example: important one aspect of our harassment and libel laws is that it's much much harder to prove harassment or libel when the victim in question is a public figure. This is important, since it protects things like political and social discourse - you don't want a presidential candidate or a rich celebrity to be able to go after all of their critics with the backing of the legal system. However, we now live in a world where anyone can become a public figure at any time, without trying. Maybe tomorrow I'll be the subject of an internet meme and 500,000 people will be sharing some animated .gif of me around, and following my twitter. It's hard to argue that I'm not a public figure at that point, but I also haven't changed anything at all about my life. So at what point in that chain do I become a public figure for legal purposes?
If Justin Carter is any indication, the law's handling of these issues is not going to be very nuanced, and I think that's something that many people have good reason to be wary of. You never really need privacy, until you do, and then you need it very much.
This is a well reasoned response, and I know there aren't easy answers to these questions.
I do in particular think the LOL player is a bad example for people who don't think internet speech should ever be prosecuted, because the context of that facebook discussion was that it was a heated argument. The guy's sarcasm was meant to be inflammatory, was meant to lash out against his opponent, it wasn't a case where he was having a good time with a friend and said something that was only, by accident, percieved as inflammtory.
Also as much as we worry about nuance, there still tons of completely un-nuanced threats and harassment of people who are just some person they disagree with on an internet forum, people who pretty obviously don't fit under the 'celebrity' exception. Let's worry about culling that behavior first, then we can worry about the more nuanced situations.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
I was addressing "Yet, he was talking about on the internet!" Followed by a rant about how terrible a world it is that people are taken to account for saying whatever they want whenever they want.
"He was talking about on the internet" is not a magic philter that cleanses all speech of potential negative implication.
Just as an example, if you're having a shouting conversation with someone you're angry at and say you're planning to kill someone sarcastically in that conversation, if some old lady a few paces away hears that part and doesn't know enough about you to know if you're being sarcasitc, she may well feel threatened by you. And however much you want to bluster about how it's really the little old lady's fault if your shouting made her feel unsafe, I don't think the law would be on your side, nor do I think it should be. Nor would I be able to understand in a technical sense how this is any different from the same conversation happening on facebook. "LOL INTERNET" is not a reasonable defense.
Oh, absolutely not. But context is supremely important in discussions of speech, and especially if you're talking about legality. It plays with the definitions.
So is a forum a private place or a public one? Is it analogous to my living room or to a public park? To be honest, it's not really quite like either, and the systems we have in place for determining whether speech is legally acceptable don't necessarily in an online framework. Is a trans support forum private? Is my Facebook feed considered a private place if I set it so only my friends can see it? Is my Twitter a private place, if I only have 4 followers? Is SA a private place because you have to pay to register, or a public place because there are thousands of goons? Right now, the same system that protects the privacy of people posting on trans support forums also protects the privacy of people on Stormfront and the harassment groups on 4Chan.
Another example: important one aspect of our harassment and libel laws is that it's much much harder to prove harassment or libel when the victim in question is a public figure. This is important, since it protects things like political and social discourse - you don't want a presidential candidate or a rich celebrity to be able to go after all of their critics with the backing of the legal system. However, we now live in a world where anyone can become a public figure at any time, without trying. Maybe tomorrow I'll be the subject of an internet meme and 500,000 people will be sharing some animated .gif of me around, and following my twitter. It's hard to argue that I'm not a public figure at that point, but I also haven't changed anything at all about my life. So at what point in that chain do I become a public figure for legal purposes?
If Justin Carter is any indication, the law's handling of these issues is not going to be very nuanced, and I think that's something that many people have good reason to be wary of. You never really need privacy, until you do, and then you need it very much.
This is a well reasoned response, and I know there aren't easy answers to these questions.
I do in particular think the LOL player is a bad example for people who don't think internet speech should ever be prosecuted, because the context of that facebook discussion was that it was a heated argument. The guy's sarcasm was meant to be inflammatory, was meant to lash out against his opponent, it wasn't a case where he was having a good time with a friend and said something that was only, by accident, percieved as inflammtory.
Also as much as we worry about nuance, there still tons of completely un-nuanced threats and harassment of people who are just some person they disagree with on an internet forum, people who pretty obviously don't fit under the 'celebrity' exception. Let's worry about culling that behavior first, then we can worry about the more nuanced situations.
I think this is all true, particularly the last part. The worst of these harassment cases, things like phone call death threats, swatting, ect - these are all things that we absolutely should be dealing with legally. They're rare enough and meaningful enough that we can absolutely bring down the legal system on these people, without harming too many innocents in the process. You can't accidentally make a death threat on the phone or swat someone. Those people should be arrested, and hopefully they will be.
Likewise, while we may not be able to apply social pressure directly to 14-year-olds, I think we have a lot of power to put pressure on developers to clean up their communities. There's no justifiable reason why Live should be anywhere near as bad of an environment as it is, and cleaning it up should be one of Microsoft's highest priorities with the Xbox One. While I don't think MS should be sued for what their users do, they should absolutely be taken to task by their consumers for it. We have systems now that can create real consequences for in-game harassment (some of which were outlined in the Extra Credits harassment episode), and there's absolutely no reason why the developers of big communities should not be investing in them, and developing better ones. We need to make it clear to anyone running an online community that this shit matters to us.
I think a lot of developers are concerned about losing business this way, they're worried that if they ban the 14-year-old ragers then they'll end up banning half of their community. Thankfully, the data we have from LoL suggests that this won't be too big a problem. Only a very small percentage of LoL players ever end up getting punished by the tribunal, and the vast majority of players are neutral or positive. It seems like there's a rager in every game because they're the loudest and the most memorable, but most players are not toxic, and would get rid of the toxicity if they could.
Issuing fines for threats is a start, suggestion wise. I dunno if $700 is right though, that's pretty danged high. People get fined for less for traffic violations - something is actually physically harmful.
Each time you make a serious threat over the Steam system, Valve randomly removes one game from your library.
More seriously though, as to the question "how do we determine what's acceptable", it's a great question because it really is up to us. The law has its boundaries but there's a wide swath of inappropriate and hurtful speech that isn't (and rightly shouldn't be (sorry Ender)) illegal.
As I tell my kids now and then, "just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should do it."
People have mentioned LoL's Tribunal system as a sort of peer review. How does that work?
After a game, you can report a player for one of a number of reasons, most of them 'violations' of the "Summoner's Code", a set of behavioral norms that the community wants to see enforced within the game. Violations will draw reports in the after-match window if people feel strongly enough that a player deserves one, and offending playersare offered to the community for review of something between three and five chatlogs from separate games where the same player was reported. Reviewers (i.e. anyone who wants to do it) read through the logs looking for whether the reported player actually did something wrong.
If a majority of the reviewers agree, the player is punished. Usually with a warning first, then a set of lengthening time bans, and finally by a permaban that is reviewed by Riot staff members prior to being handed down.
Warnings from the tribunal come with some guidelines for how not to offend again, and the time bans are sometimes accompanied by personal attention from Riot staff to help reform the player.
Reviewers get a periodic review of their "success rate", i.e. the number of times their personal decision ended up matching the one that was handed down.
anyone that thinks anonymity is the problem has never looked at a comments section where facebook pages are used as user names
it is definitely not the issue
Correct.
The issue, instead, is the lack of fear of a violent reprisal. You can spew whatever vitriol you want if you know it's not going to get you punched in the face for it.
anyone that thinks anonymity is the problem has never looked at a comments section where facebook pages are used as user names
it is definitely not the issue
Yeah, social sanctioning even where it is effective is dependent on which group's opinion you value. And there are plenty of groups out there with horrible, horrible world views.
My local paper did this, and not one damn thing changed. Terrible people are perfectly capable of being proudly terrible.
anyone that thinks anonymity is the problem has never looked at a comments section where facebook pages are used as user names
it is definitely not the issue
Correct.
The issue, instead, is the lack of fear of a violent reprisal. You can spew whatever vitriol you want if you know it's not going to get you punched in the face for it.
about this, I'm not sure how many people are familiar with southern culture but as an arkansas boy I know a thing or two about it. one of the reasons everyone is so polite is not because they're just nice people, it's the opposite. if you slight someone in any way they are going to kick your ass. It makes me wonder if that's really the solution, is having violence so close to the surface actually a good thing? I guess in our current situation anything is better.
anyone that thinks anonymity is the problem has never looked at a comments section where facebook pages are used as user names
it is definitely not the issue
Correct.
The issue, instead, is the lack of fear of a violent reprisal. You can spew whatever vitriol you want if you know it's not going to get you punched in the face for it.
about this, I'm not sure how many people are familiar with southern culture but as an arkansas boy I know a thing or two about it. one of the reasons everyone is so polite is not because they're just nice people, it's the opposite. if you slight someone in any way they are going to kick your ass. It makes me wonder if that's really the solution, is having violence so close to the surface actually a good thing? I guess in our current situation anything is better.
it doesn't have to be a threat of violence though. just as long as their is a clear consequence for these actions. if people can easily reason that 'action A' will most likely result in 'consequence B', then they are more likely to be mindful of their behaviour.
"I'm not going to mouth off to you 'cause you might kick my ass" is just one example.
"I really shouldn't have tweeted 'I hope you miscarry 100 times and die of womb cancer bitch!!' cause i might go to jail" is another example.
of course, there's the separate issue that there are plenty of other valid reasons why people shouldn't mouth off or send such abhorrent messages but at least for now those reasons aren't getting through.
"I really shouldn't have tweeted 'I hope you miscarry 100 times and die of womb cancer bitch!!' cause i might go to jail" is another example.
Be careful with that wording. Worded that way, he wouldn't. The law gets really specific about this stuff sometimes - though for good(and obvious) reason.
If he were to say that he was going to make you miscarry 100 times, that's when we get into actionable territory and they can be arrested.
However, for example, saying you hope someone goes and dies in a fire - although abhorrent, is still protected speech(aside from the confines of whatever terms of service for the platform he's using to deliver it). Versus... "I'm going to make you die in a fire."
"I really shouldn't have tweeted 'I hope you miscarry 100 times and die of womb cancer bitch!!' cause i might go to jail" is another example.
Be careful with that wording. Worded that way, he wouldn't. The law gets really specific about this stuff sometimes - though for good(and obvious) reason.
If he were to say that he was going to make you miscarry 100 times, that's when we get into actionable territory and they can be arrested.
However, for example, saying you hope someone goes and dies in a fire - although abhorrent, is still protected speech(aside from the confines of whatever terms of service for the platform he's using to deliver it). Versus... "I'm going to make you die in a fire."
ok, so that wasn't a great example but i think my point is still valid. there needs to be a clear and understood consequence for undesirable behaviour, whether it be the threat of violence(as mentioned above), restricted/revoked access to certain sites or indeed jail time when the offence does warrant it.
I want a website.... something like http://lolfreespeech.com that I can just link to idiots whenever they try to invoke the phrase "free speech" when they clearly have no idea what it is, and that has absolutely no relevance in the current discussion (usually being them being a complete shitbag to another person online or whatever)
This site would ideally just explain in simple language the difference between government vs. private and how, yes, a private company can do WHATEVER they want to your account/ability to use service to communicate based on your actions and you have no expectation to free speech except in regards to government intervention. And even then, there are limits.
So many conversations just seem to get derailed and spin down a rabbit hole because the shitbags want to just argue and troll. The non-shitbags who actually try and stop them ( I use the term "stop" pretty loosely here ) then get swept up in a meaningless discussion that accomplishes nothing. When in reality the response just needs to be "No you are wrong <link>."
When people are objectively wrong, there is no benefit in allowing them to derail you into trying to educate them.
It's really hard online when you have a group of people trying to actually say "uhhh no this isn't ok and here are some possible solutions or whatever" and you have a handful of other people literally just screaming "free speech" or victim blaming. And then instead of actually debating on possible solutions it's just people fumbling over explaining free speech when in reality that doesn't need to be explained over and over every time.
Bigsushi.fm
Listen to our podcast, read our articles, tell us how much you hate it and how to make it better
I'm kind of disappointed that there isn't any website at lolfreespeech, because I think a website that broke down free speech (and related) laws by country and explained their practical applications could be useful. Even beyond that, an explanation that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence, or literally being able to say whatever you want, whenever and wherever you want, would be nice. I greatly value freedom of expression, but the complementary value of freedom of a private forum holder, for instance, to ban people in response to their speech, is important, because it preserves the rights of the private owner to control the thing that they own. It's the reason that PA is able to police itself as well as it does, and I'm glad of it. Freedoms for one person typically need to be balanced against the freedom of others, and I think that is often lost in this kind of discussion, especially when someone just wants to troll anyways, and doesn't really give a damn about freedom or rights or anything, and is just determined to be a dick.
schmads on
Battle.net/SC2: Kwisatz.868 | Steam/XBL/PSN/Gamecenter: schmads | BattleTag/D3: Schmads#1144 | Hero Academy & * With Friends: FallenKwisatz | 3DS: 4356-0128-9671
+4
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Rather than start a new thread I'm bringing this one back up. We have a new specific incident to discuss. Flappy Bird.
Here's my understanding of the situation.
- A guy made just another throw-away app. This shit happens all the time. So far, who would or should care?
- Somehow the app gets really popular. Again, who would or should care?
- Guy makes a lot of money as a result. Again, who would or should care? I'll admit it makes me jealous that people just stumble into money, but whatever.
- People across the net freak out and start harassing and threatening the dude. This isn't cool.
- The guy freaks out and pulls his app from the store (or is planning to?). Receives even more harassment and threats. This isn't cool.
- I guess the guy has commented on the situation, which I can't see, but some people are feeling like he deserves the harassment somehow as a result.
So why am I bringing this up in this thread where I had a passionate moment of outrage and called for people to start meeting aggression with reason and Persona non Grata (rather than ignore it)?
Well, because this fits into what this thread is about. If people are upset that the guy is pulling his app, fine, be upset. I hate losing things I like too. If people never liked his app or success, fine, be critical. But there's a huge difference between being upset and/or critical and then pulling the kind of crap that is going on across the internet over this dumb fucking game.
It's a video game. And unless this guy is actively killing people with his bare hands to keep the app running, I don't think harassing the shit out of him is going to do anything aside from make people look like the silliest of geese.
So once again I ask all of you - if you know people that are overreacting to this game, talk to them, ask or tell them (depending on your relationship to these people / their personalities) to chill the hell out. And if they double-down or refuse, just cut them loose from your social circles and communities. Who needs them? Try to help them, yes, but if they don't want to be helped, let them band together in desperation and turn on each other.
Near as I can figure, without actually caring enough to research it, the outrage seems to be coming from stealing/redesigning/homaging Nintendo graphics and the unpardonable sin of the game not being (apparently) any good to begin with.
So:
1- He's a thief.
2- From Nintendo. (Gasp!)
3- The game isn't a masterwork.
4- He stumbled onto a new, modern pet rock.
And so people think they have the right to be as rude as they want because obviously he deserves it. Also, 'acceptable targets' and 'internet anonymity' and blahblahblah.
Near as I can figure, without actually caring enough to research it, the outrage seems to be coming from stealing/redesigning/homaging Nintendo graphics and the unpardonable sin of the game not being (apparently) any good to begin with.
So:
1- He's a thief.
2- From Nintendo. (Gasp!)
3- The game isn't a masterwork.
4- He stumbled onto a new, modern pet rock.
And so people think they have the right to be as rude as they want because obviously he deserves it. Also, 'acceptable targets' and 'internet anonymity' and blahblahblah.
Eh not really. He's getting just as many death threats now that he's said he's pulling the game: see this collection of threats, for instance.
Man, people throw around death threats on the Internet like beads at Mardi Gras. It's fucking weird. I wouldn't be surprised if every patch to every game elicits several hundred death threats.
Hexmage-PA on
+2
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Man, people throw around death threats on the Internet like beads at Mardi Gras. It's fucking weird. I wouldn't be surprised if every patch to every game elicits several hundred death threats.
But it's that carefree use of threats that dilutes how disturbing they are.
Near as I can figure, without actually caring enough to research it, the outrage seems to be coming from stealing/redesigning/homaging Nintendo graphics and the unpardonable sin of the game not being (apparently) any good to begin with.
So:
1- He's a thief.
2- From Nintendo. (Gasp!)
3- The game isn't a masterwork.
4- He stumbled onto a new, modern pet rock.
And so people think they have the right to be as rude as they want because obviously he deserves it. Also, 'acceptable targets' and 'internet anonymity' and blahblahblah.
Eh not really. He's getting just as many death threats now that he's said he's pulling the game: see this collection of threats, for instance.
Perhaps. But I still hold he'd get those threats anyway.
That anyone would give ten kinds of a damn over a dollar app is just...kind of...indicative of where we are and where we're going. And it's not just video games. People feel more and more entitled to express themselves however they please. Social media just gives them a safer (not saner) way to express it. By that I refer to the man who pointed a gun at a girl scout because she had the temerity to trespass by knocking on his door. At least he'd look less like a psychopath if he'd just tweeted 'Fuckking Girl Scots And There Fuuking Cockies!'
Either way, death threats over a game is definitely a line where I'd cut ties with anybody so stupid.
Man, people throw around death threats on the Internet like beads at Mardi Gras. It's fucking weird. I wouldn't be surprised if every patch to every game elicits several hundred death threats.
After following Greg Street on Twitter (former team lead for World of Warcraft) for a year I suspect it is fairly common response to change. The level of abuse people can throw someones way over a tiny change in a game is disgusting. CoD developer David Vanderhaar spoke up about it last year after he received threats for one of their patches.
Either way, death threats over a game is definitely a line where I'd cut ties with anybody so stupid.
Related to this, setting aside Nguyen for a moment, the people leaving these threats are doing so in a public setting. They are leaving a trail a prospective employer could easily happen upon when checking out a job candidate. In todays world that's not an unrealistic scenario. Not only are they doing harm to the person they're sending the threat to, there are potential repercussions to their lives as well. You have to be very careful what you say online doesn't come back to bite you on the ass. I don't credit them with having the intelligence to know that though.
I agree with the first half of the video, but the second half is misguided. Why should someone be obligated to respond to dozens of messages from random strangers?
If the $50K/day figures are accurate, while people shouldn't be dicks, I have about zero sympathy for him. I've been actually shot at (often, not just a one time thing) for ~$50K/year, so I'd gladly upgrade to people hurting my feels over the internet for several hundred times that much money.
I agree with the first half of the video, but the second half is misguided. Why should someone be obligated to respond to dozens of messages from random strangers?
Its part of the dehumanizing effect that she can call them "losers" rather than "suitors." Because its a message in an inbox, its words, rather than a human being prostrating themselves before you in search of friendship and/or love.
If the $50K/day figures are accurate, while people shouldn't be dicks, I have about zero sympathy for him. I've been actually shot at (often, not just a one time thing) for ~$50K/year, so I'd gladly upgrade to people hurting my feels over the internet for several hundred times that much money.
Honestly, I'd love to trade places with him.
So the more income someone has, the more it's okay for people to issue threats and harass?
If the $50K/day figures are accurate, while people shouldn't be dicks, I have about zero sympathy for him. I've been actually shot at (often, not just a one time thing) for ~$50K/year, so I'd gladly upgrade to people hurting my feels over the internet for several hundred times that much money.
Honestly, I'd love to trade places with him.
The grass is always greener on the other death threat.
Edit: And I assume your job was one where you knew you'd be at risk, and that you are not passively sitting in harms way at all time. This guy made a mediocre game that shot to public attention. Get over the money and consider the person.
If the $50K/day figures are accurate, while people shouldn't be dicks, I have about zero sympathy for him. I've been actually shot at (often, not just a one time thing) for ~$50K/year, so I'd gladly upgrade to people hurting my feels over the internet for several hundred times that much money.
Honestly, I'd love to trade places with him.
So the more income someone has, the more it's okay for people to issue threats and harass?
Yeah, Twitter abuse is hard to deal with. I mean it's not like I could just delete the useless app from my phone in 2 seconds and console myself with my hypothetical mountains of cash or anything.
Frankly I'd happily tolerate a shitload worse than some idiots tweeting threats that I don't even have to read to make my annual salary every single day.
I can't check tweets anymore, the poors are mad at my massively successful App Store game and I get death threats whether I leave it up or take it down. Guess I'll leave it up and use today's 50k on a bodyguard and a solid gold handgun. #1%problems
Posts
Yet, he was talking about on the internet. Just how many times do you think somebody responds to a post with a cribbed joke or a lyric?
You've heard about the kid who sarcastically posted he was going to do some sort of violence (complete with 'lol')? Well, they're going after him for making a terrorist threat because some adult saw that he lived near an elementary school.
Nuance on the internet is quite difficult to pull off. Reactionary bullshit in real life is quite easy. It's certainly a wondrous time we live in.
Also there's a lot of context applied to people like Louis CK and what they say and when they say it.
Folks may not like it, but reality is, just because you heard Louis CK say it, doesn't mean it's ok for you to say it, out of context, and out of it's proper setting.
Louis CK, watch some interviews with him, that aren't like Conan 'interviews' where he's just doing part of his act, but like sit down, talk Paley type stuff. Dude doesn't really say the things he says in his acts in normal conversation; and in fact actually often walks back things he says in the sense that he's pulling back the curtain and showing you the reality of the exaggerated story he tells in his shows (for instance, the infamous 'people are never happy with anything in an amazing world' story, that he later said was actually about him and not anyone else; his jokes are often self criticism veiled as rants about society). He's actually a level headed responsible, respectful (to others) guy.
So yeah, you can't just be "well I heard Carlin say it, so I'm free to say this whenever, and wherever I want, to whomever I want". That's just not how life works. Well, I mean, you can, but there are consequences that you have to accept to doing so.
Part of this comes to the understanding of what comedy, or music, or movies, books, all that, what they actually are doing. Actors in a movie get away with 'murder' because it's not actually murder, they're portraying something to evoke ideas of opinions that would otherwise be too difficult to communicate with words (without proper literary techniques often employed by good authors in books or news). Likewise Louis CK is saying things in a context (i.e. his show, his act) that aren't intended to be said by anyone anywhere, but are said in a way by him to convey ideas in a manner that will help some people understand, other people cope, etc. And so on with music, television, etc.
My overall point being, the fact you can't say random horrible shit in public whenever and wherever you want isn't a matter, necessarily of some sort of censorship or oppressive thought police. It's simply because that's how society works. You temper your words, and sometimes even your thoughts, for the benefit of others, which in turn benefits you when everything works well. That's not to say 'sit down and shut up', it just is to say 'don't yell fire in a theater because that's being a fucking dick'.
EDIT: and yes, the internet is a different social beast right now; but as privacy diminishes on the internet to come more into line with normal real world privacy (i.e. you may be a face in the crowd, but you still have a face, and people can and will recognize it and you will be accountable for what you say and do), I think the internet will (hopefully?) also start to come into line with something resembling a normal functional society, of which it currently isn't.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Well this is part of the problem, though. You, and others, see the internet as "my own room in my apartment I pay rent on" (or wherever), when the reality is that the internet has a lot more similarity to that public bar or a public park. You're not actually in a private room saying things that no one will hear, you're in a public forum declaring things that hundreds of people can see, and your words will probably be archived for a good long while.
"It's the internet." is used as the excuse, as if that explains away everything. Because we've gotten used to the fact that this particular public space has people threatening other people constantly and that's OK for some reason, when it's not OK in any other public space we know of, including over the telephone.
Hey, at least somebody gets it.
That kid you speak of will likely have his life ruined forever. Because he used the unfortunate tool of sarcasm to say how insane it was to shoot up a school, and that the idea that video games could make you shoot up a school was just as insane.
That is unacceptable, and yet another reason in a long line of reason why I think we desperately need some kind universal sarcasm font or tag, or something. Something unmistakable that could be easily and widely adopted. A forum I used to post on usually used italics for sarcasm, because that's so cool. <-- See? It even looks sarcastic, like the strain of raising an eyebrow pulled the letters to the side a bit.
You'll want to be careful how you use that royal 'you'. I never stated my views on speech on the internet. I was clarifying his point which your rebuttal didn't have anything to do with addressing.
I know where I am. I know what I can and cannot say. And I know when I can say them.
After all, Carlin once said:
This cuts in both directions though. So, say internet communities are a public place where you have no expectation of privacy. Does that mean it's cool to out all of the trans people who post under psuedoyms on trans support forums? After all, they have no expectation of privacy, they're posting in a public place.
"He was talking about on the internet" is not a magic philter that cleanses all speech of potential negative implication.
Just as an example, if you're having a shouting conversation with someone you're angry at and say you're planning to kill someone sarcastically in that conversation, if some old lady a few paces away hears that part and doesn't know enough about you to know if you're being sarcasitc, she may well feel threatened by you. And however much you want to bluster about how it's really the little old lady's fault if your shouting made her feel unsafe, I don't think the law would be on your side, nor do I think it should be. Nor would I be able to understand in a technical sense how this is any different from the same conversation happening on facebook. "LOL INTERNET" is not a reasonable defense.
This assumes that the flagging / reporting system goes without investigation. It's a poor assumption to make. Even then, our system is setup that you can challenge and fight things and provide evidence that yes, that is a Louis CK routine you quoted.
As far as things to watch out for if we pursue legal consequence for shitty things said on the net or outright threats made via the net, this is very low on the totem pole.
Oh, absolutely not. But context is supremely important in discussions of speech, and especially if you're talking about legality. It plays with the definitions.
So is a forum a private place or a public one? Is it analogous to my living room or to a public park? To be honest, it's not really quite like either, and the systems we have in place for determining whether speech is legally acceptable don't necessarily in an online framework. Is a trans support forum private? Is my Facebook feed considered a private place if I set it so only my friends can see it? Is my Twitter a private place, if I only have 4 followers? Is SA a private place because you have to pay to register, or a public place because there are thousands of goons? Right now, the same system that protects the privacy of people posting on trans support forums also protects the privacy of people on Stormfront and the harassment groups on 4Chan.
Another example: important one aspect of our harassment and libel laws is that it's much much harder to prove harassment or libel when the victim in question is a public figure. This is important, since it protects things like political and social discourse - you don't want a presidential candidate or a rich celebrity to be able to go after all of their critics with the backing of the legal system. However, we now live in a world where anyone can become a public figure at any time, without trying. Maybe tomorrow I'll be the subject of an internet meme and 500,000 people will be sharing some animated .gif of me around, and following my twitter. It's hard to argue that I'm not a public figure at that point, but I also haven't changed anything at all about my life. So at what point in that chain do I become a public figure for legal purposes?
If Justin Carter is any indication, the law's handling of these issues is not going to be very nuanced, and I think that's something that many people have good reason to be wary of. You never really need privacy, until you do, and then you need it very much.
This is a well reasoned response, and I know there aren't easy answers to these questions.
I do in particular think the LOL player is a bad example for people who don't think internet speech should ever be prosecuted, because the context of that facebook discussion was that it was a heated argument. The guy's sarcasm was meant to be inflammatory, was meant to lash out against his opponent, it wasn't a case where he was having a good time with a friend and said something that was only, by accident, percieved as inflammtory.
Also as much as we worry about nuance, there still tons of completely un-nuanced threats and harassment of people who are just some person they disagree with on an internet forum, people who pretty obviously don't fit under the 'celebrity' exception. Let's worry about culling that behavior first, then we can worry about the more nuanced situations.
it is definitely not the issue
I think this is all true, particularly the last part. The worst of these harassment cases, things like phone call death threats, swatting, ect - these are all things that we absolutely should be dealing with legally. They're rare enough and meaningful enough that we can absolutely bring down the legal system on these people, without harming too many innocents in the process. You can't accidentally make a death threat on the phone or swat someone. Those people should be arrested, and hopefully they will be.
Likewise, while we may not be able to apply social pressure directly to 14-year-olds, I think we have a lot of power to put pressure on developers to clean up their communities. There's no justifiable reason why Live should be anywhere near as bad of an environment as it is, and cleaning it up should be one of Microsoft's highest priorities with the Xbox One. While I don't think MS should be sued for what their users do, they should absolutely be taken to task by their consumers for it. We have systems now that can create real consequences for in-game harassment (some of which were outlined in the Extra Credits harassment episode), and there's absolutely no reason why the developers of big communities should not be investing in them, and developing better ones. We need to make it clear to anyone running an online community that this shit matters to us.
I think a lot of developers are concerned about losing business this way, they're worried that if they ban the 14-year-old ragers then they'll end up banning half of their community. Thankfully, the data we have from LoL suggests that this won't be too big a problem. Only a very small percentage of LoL players ever end up getting punished by the tribunal, and the vast majority of players are neutral or positive. It seems like there's a rager in every game because they're the loudest and the most memorable, but most players are not toxic, and would get rid of the toxicity if they could.
brb trading for 4000 copies of Bad Rats.
As I tell my kids now and then, "just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should do it."
After a game, you can report a player for one of a number of reasons, most of them 'violations' of the "Summoner's Code", a set of behavioral norms that the community wants to see enforced within the game. Violations will draw reports in the after-match window if people feel strongly enough that a player deserves one, and offending playersare offered to the community for review of something between three and five chatlogs from separate games where the same player was reported. Reviewers (i.e. anyone who wants to do it) read through the logs looking for whether the reported player actually did something wrong.
If a majority of the reviewers agree, the player is punished. Usually with a warning first, then a set of lengthening time bans, and finally by a permaban that is reviewed by Riot staff members prior to being handed down.
Warnings from the tribunal come with some guidelines for how not to offend again, and the time bans are sometimes accompanied by personal attention from Riot staff to help reform the player.
Reviewers get a periodic review of their "success rate", i.e. the number of times their personal decision ended up matching the one that was handed down.
The issue, instead, is the lack of fear of a violent reprisal. You can spew whatever vitriol you want if you know it's not going to get you punched in the face for it.
Also, an aside:
I was going to post something like "Oi. Well, feel free to rage at me in the future if you need to." And then I remembered which thread this is.
So instead: given that you can be cordial on the Internet, no one else has any excuse.
My local paper did this, and not one damn thing changed. Terrible people are perfectly capable of being proudly terrible.
about this, I'm not sure how many people are familiar with southern culture but as an arkansas boy I know a thing or two about it. one of the reasons everyone is so polite is not because they're just nice people, it's the opposite. if you slight someone in any way they are going to kick your ass. It makes me wonder if that's really the solution, is having violence so close to the surface actually a good thing? I guess in our current situation anything is better.
it doesn't have to be a threat of violence though. just as long as their is a clear consequence for these actions. if people can easily reason that 'action A' will most likely result in 'consequence B', then they are more likely to be mindful of their behaviour.
"I'm not going to mouth off to you 'cause you might kick my ass" is just one example.
"I really shouldn't have tweeted 'I hope you miscarry 100 times and die of womb cancer bitch!!' cause i might go to jail" is another example.
of course, there's the separate issue that there are plenty of other valid reasons why people shouldn't mouth off or send such abhorrent messages but at least for now those reasons aren't getting through.
Be careful with that wording. Worded that way, he wouldn't. The law gets really specific about this stuff sometimes - though for good(and obvious) reason.
If he were to say that he was going to make you miscarry 100 times, that's when we get into actionable territory and they can be arrested.
However, for example, saying you hope someone goes and dies in a fire - although abhorrent, is still protected speech(aside from the confines of whatever terms of service for the platform he's using to deliver it). Versus... "I'm going to make you die in a fire."
ok, so that wasn't a great example but i think my point is still valid. there needs to be a clear and understood consequence for undesirable behaviour, whether it be the threat of violence(as mentioned above), restricted/revoked access to certain sites or indeed jail time when the offence does warrant it.
This site would ideally just explain in simple language the difference between government vs. private and how, yes, a private company can do WHATEVER they want to your account/ability to use service to communicate based on your actions and you have no expectation to free speech except in regards to government intervention. And even then, there are limits.
So many conversations just seem to get derailed and spin down a rabbit hole because the shitbags want to just argue and troll. The non-shitbags who actually try and stop them ( I use the term "stop" pretty loosely here ) then get swept up in a meaningless discussion that accomplishes nothing. When in reality the response just needs to be "No you are wrong <link>."
When people are objectively wrong, there is no benefit in allowing them to derail you into trying to educate them.
It's really hard online when you have a group of people trying to actually say "uhhh no this isn't ok and here are some possible solutions or whatever" and you have a handful of other people literally just screaming "free speech" or victim blaming. And then instead of actually debating on possible solutions it's just people fumbling over explaining free speech when in reality that doesn't need to be explained over and over every time.
Listen to our podcast, read our articles, tell us how much you hate it and how to make it better
Here's my understanding of the situation.
- A guy made just another throw-away app. This shit happens all the time. So far, who would or should care?
- Somehow the app gets really popular. Again, who would or should care?
- Guy makes a lot of money as a result. Again, who would or should care? I'll admit it makes me jealous that people just stumble into money, but whatever.
- People across the net freak out and start harassing and threatening the dude. This isn't cool.
- The guy freaks out and pulls his app from the store (or is planning to?). Receives even more harassment and threats. This isn't cool.
- I guess the guy has commented on the situation, which I can't see, but some people are feeling like he deserves the harassment somehow as a result.
So why am I bringing this up in this thread where I had a passionate moment of outrage and called for people to start meeting aggression with reason and Persona non Grata (rather than ignore it)?
Well, because this fits into what this thread is about. If people are upset that the guy is pulling his app, fine, be upset. I hate losing things I like too. If people never liked his app or success, fine, be critical. But there's a huge difference between being upset and/or critical and then pulling the kind of crap that is going on across the internet over this dumb fucking game.
It's a video game. And unless this guy is actively killing people with his bare hands to keep the app running, I don't think harassing the shit out of him is going to do anything aside from make people look like the silliest of geese.
So once again I ask all of you - if you know people that are overreacting to this game, talk to them, ask or tell them (depending on your relationship to these people / their personalities) to chill the hell out. And if they double-down or refuse, just cut them loose from your social circles and communities. Who needs them? Try to help them, yes, but if they don't want to be helped, let them band together in desperation and turn on each other.
Just throwing that out there
So:
1- He's a thief.
2- From Nintendo. (Gasp!)
3- The game isn't a masterwork.
4- He stumbled onto a new, modern pet rock.
And so people think they have the right to be as rude as they want because obviously he deserves it. Also, 'acceptable targets' and 'internet anonymity' and blahblahblah.
But it's that carefree use of threats that dilutes how disturbing they are.
Perhaps. But I still hold he'd get those threats anyway.
That anyone would give ten kinds of a damn over a dollar app is just...kind of...indicative of where we are and where we're going. And it's not just video games. People feel more and more entitled to express themselves however they please. Social media just gives them a safer (not saner) way to express it. By that I refer to the man who pointed a gun at a girl scout because she had the temerity to trespass by knocking on his door. At least he'd look less like a psychopath if he'd just tweeted 'Fuckking Girl Scots And There Fuuking Cockies!'
Either way, death threats over a game is definitely a line where I'd cut ties with anybody so stupid.
After following Greg Street on Twitter (former team lead for World of Warcraft) for a year I suspect it is fairly common response to change. The level of abuse people can throw someones way over a tiny change in a game is disgusting. CoD developer David Vanderhaar spoke up about it last year after he received threats for one of their patches.
Related to this, setting aside Nguyen for a moment, the people leaving these threats are doing so in a public setting. They are leaving a trail a prospective employer could easily happen upon when checking out a job candidate. In todays world that's not an unrealistic scenario. Not only are they doing harm to the person they're sending the threat to, there are potential repercussions to their lives as well. You have to be very careful what you say online doesn't come back to bite you on the ass. I don't credit them with having the intelligence to know that though.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
I agree with the first half of the video, but the second half is misguided. Why should someone be obligated to respond to dozens of messages from random strangers?
Honestly, I'd love to trade places with him.
Its part of the dehumanizing effect that she can call them "losers" rather than "suitors." Because its a message in an inbox, its words, rather than a human being prostrating themselves before you in search of friendship and/or love.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
So the more income someone has, the more it's okay for people to issue threats and harass?
The grass is always greener on the other death threat.
Edit: And I assume your job was one where you knew you'd be at risk, and that you are not passively sitting in harms way at all time. This guy made a mediocre game that shot to public attention. Get over the money and consider the person.
Frankly I'd happily tolerate a shitload worse than some idiots tweeting threats that I don't even have to read to make my annual salary every single day.