Apparently its a database that creates profiles and records the online activity of people deemed to engage in "hate speech". Anybody can submit a profile for someone else, and upload screenshots of that person's online activity. Kinda like that "Peeple App" controversy a while back that was going to let people submit profiles of other people and rate them as a person. (which has since been watered down and changed from Opt-out to Opt-in in the face of the controversy and potential legal challenges).
"There is no way that this many girls run a tech start-up".
Except we do, and we are about to save the virtual world with it, so listen up! We promise to keep this short and fun:
Somewhere between cells phones and technology (and the extinction of the VHS tape maybe) we've managed to create a culture of online-bullying, which was totally cool never, so it's time we put an end to it once and for all.
There have been so many amazing organizations before us who have made (and continue to make) significant strides and efforts to not only create awareness, but to push through to legislation to affect change.
But we thought, "instead of trying to stop it, why don't we try to capture it?".
Because what's the number one defense people use when they are making awful, nasty comments online?
an't argue that one, so let's instead help them magnify those freedoms. Let's launch a database where we capture them exercising those rights and create digital records for them that anyone can access.
Yup. We consider ourselves to be patriots.
(This is the part where we address your immediate concerns.)
Important to note: We do not allow any commenting on our site because we do not want to host a platform for any bullying ourselves. Our database also cannot be searched by keyword (i.e, homophobia, racism, etc) which means a self-proclaimed vigilante would be unable to round up a specified group of online offenders.
(Okay this is the part where we tell you where your money is going.)
Thus far we have worked to collect data and create about 22,000 profiles from individuals that are surprising all over the employment spectrum (doctors, teachers, lawyers, you name it).
With your backing, we can take a break and go shopping, because we are women and that would be fun for us.
Just kidding.
With your backing, we can expand our team of web analysts in order to create profiles at a faster rate, as our goal is to launch the database at 150,000 profiles. We will immediately apply your funding to hiring a team of paid interns for the summer, and our continuing web development. We will devote all remaining funds toward our legal team, which we are going to need intact when we bring this site live.
(Now this is the part where we tell you how deep we roll)
Okay. That was a bit of dishonest marketing on our part. We do not know Taylor Swift, nor do we know Cara Delevigne, or for what reason exactly she is waving an English flag in this photo. In fact they will likely fire off a cease and desist letter to us for sourcing that image irresponsibly-- which we hope reinforces our earlier point about legal necessity.
All that squared away, the truer version of our squad is even more amazing:
We have worked to build and bridge with an impactful network. Most notably, we are proud partners and friends of the Tyler Clementi Foundation and their Day1 campaign.We encourage you all to check out their work and website. As well as a list of their organization's initiatives, which align fully with our own.
(Now this is the part where we tell you what's up next for us).
Our Founder, Candace Owens has been selected to give a TEDx talk on June 4th, 2016 about the perils of this era of technology, and all that we are doing to combat it.. The talk will be webcast live on the Ted.Com website, and it is slated to be the most important talk of our century, according to her mother. You will not want to miss it.
Now this is the part where we finish with a sweet one-liner and a bonus video, because you've earned that if you've gotten this far:
Our team has a simple message to share: Love is easier.
Check out all of crazy thoughts and experiences at our blog, Degree180.com.
FAQ What is a digital footprint? Users submit a screenshot of a person’s hate-fueled social media post, which is then used to create a profile that includes their full name, place of employment, city of residence and schools. How do you discover users real names? Screenshots are submitted anonymously by online friends of that user. Their “friends” of course, know their full names and details.
How do I know if I have been added to this database? Check back when we’ve fully launched to search by name or employer.
How do you prevent people from using this information to harm others? We do not allow any commenting on our database, and we have disabled the ability to search our database by keywords (e.g homophobia, racism, etc). In other words, you would have to know the individual by first and last name in order to discover them.
Do these profiles last forever? Subject to change, each profile that is created remains public for 1 year. It is our hope that in that time frame, the user will consider carefully what they share.
Are all submissions accepted? Absolutely not. Each and every submission goes through a process in which our team determines whether or not the user is just expressing an opinion or exercising harmful speech. There is a big difference between “F*** the Patriots. Go Giants! ” and “I hope Tom Brady dies, and his wife is raped”. We all know the difference.
When will we be able to search the database? Our database will launch automatically when we get to 100,000 profiles. Enter your e-mail on our homepage to receive an e-mail notification when we’ve launched. Until then, help us stop online hate by submitting profiles and helping us build our database.
I've got many problems with this.
1) Its a gross violation of privacy. Had a trivial but heated argument on Facebook with insults made by both sides? Someone with an axe to grind may choose to submit a profile for you to a database for the entire world to see, maybe taking the original argument completely out of context or telling only half the story. Apparently profiles can be searched for by Name and Employer. This can and will be used as a weapon to get people fired.
2)The complete disregard for the safety and privacy of minors. I'm not sure from which video the clip was taken, but in Mundane Matt's video one of the creators talked about how they want under-age children to be included on their database in the hopes that public shaming in their formative years will encourage them to "modify their behaviour". Children do stupid things, and often behave cruelly to each other. Does that mean they should be publicly shamed and submitted to a public database? Feth no! Take it through the proper channels, to the parents, the School or Facebook itself.
I recall a story a few months ago when some public figure on Twitter who received hate mail from children tracked them down on Facebook and reported them to their parents with screenshots of their messages. Whilst she did also publicise the hate messages on Twitter, she took care to censor the identity of those concerned. Thats a much better way of dealing with the issue.
3)The lack of due process. Cyber bullying is awful and should be tackled but creating a public database of people's behaviours is NOT an appropriate way to go about it. Genuine instances of cyber bullying and stalking should be pursued through proper channels, by reporting it to Facebook, Twitter, parents, schools or the Police. Ironically, creating a public database is itself a form of cyber bullying and cyber stalking, and is little more than online vigilantism.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Its only bad when the government moniters your communication.
Random people doing it is perfectly fine. especially if it is done to stop "Hate Speech"
I think what you mean is it's only censorship when the government punishes you or prevents you from engaging in protected speech.
What random people do can be objectively "bad" as this project shows.
Kilkrazy wrote: It strikes me as a well-intentioned project by an enthusiastic group who haven't thought through all the implications and what could go wrong.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
-C.S.Lewis
What is a digital footprint?
Users submit a screenshot of a person’s hate-fueled social media post, which is then used to create a profile that includes their full name, place of employment, city of residence and schools.
So let's say I don't like bill.
Let's say I then create a social media account "HitlerRox4EverKKK".
Let's say I then go on a posting frenzy.
Let's say I then on my normal account, attribute this to bill.
Let's say I then "Discover" this website for the first time, posting various random nasty profiles from it (by searching for random names)
Let's say I then,"Discover" "Bill's" "HitlerRox4EverKKK" account.
Perhaps a nice 3rd party submits this to bills boss. Maybe bill's distraught, hot wife needs a shoulder to cry on..
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I would be very interested in hearing the criteria that they use to determine what is "hate speech"
"I know it when I see it" -potter stewart
It's ok, they are only doing it because "love is easier". And what better way to show that you love someone than by publicly shaming them, doxing them, and exposing them to a potential campaign of harassment which may cost them their livlihood?
So how does this idea work for people with burner accounts?
In a very broad sense of the idea, I kinda like it. Mostly in that I think that those who make a campaign of trolling and harassment (regardless of reason) to make someone else's life difficult should have to deal with the consequences.
That said, as others have posted here already, this is purely a doxxing service, and I will be quite happy to see it gone and taken down.
Users submit a screenshot of a person’s hate-fueled social media post, which is then used to create a profile that includes their full name, place of employment, city of residence and schools.
I reported as well. It would bring no end of grief if someone with a vendetta decided they were going to ruin your life with this. Copy your details from a Facebook account, post a few racist comments, and submit. How much effort are they going to put in to verify if an account it legitimate? How would they handle hundreds or thousands of submissions per day?
What is a digital footprint? Users submit a screenshot of a person’s hate-fueled social media post, which is then used to create a profile that includes their full name, place of employment, city of residence and schools.
Sounds like a doxing service
Well, there are various definitions. Here's one I found by the Bar.
Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.
There's a good sentnace in there that basicaly sums up my opinion on the issue.
Think about it. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object.
curran12 wrote: In a very broad sense of the idea, I kinda like it. Mostly in that I think that those who make a campaign of trolling and harassment (regardless of reason) to make someone else's life difficult should have to deal with the consequences.
That said, as others have posted here already, this is purely a doxxing service, and I will be quite happy to see it gone and taken down.
One mans disagreement is another's harassment just look at the Twitter case in Canada. The "harasser" lost his job was not allowed to use anything that can connect to the internet (no smart phone no PC) and 100k lawyer bill. He was declared innocent but sill lost a lot as he was guilty of wrong speak to some well connected feminists.
There's a good sentnace in there that basicaly sums up my opinion on the issue.
Think about it. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech
Sorry, posting from my phone so cut off more than I meant.
That quote is all well and good except it is used as an excuse against critcizing ideas. I don't know how many times I've seen a bigot try to say their right to free speech is being trampled on when people disagree (even forcefully) with them.
Agree with skyth. More often than not, I see trumpeting of "free speech" come with a veiled demand that they be allowed to speak and not have to hear any response that isn't agreement. I suppose that's free speech too, but if you're looking to hold an opinion and never once be criticized for it, you probably should just keep your mouth shut because free speech just doesn't work that way.
Lording over people the threat of public shaming however isn't free speech. That's threatening lively hood, privacy, and peace of mind and I doubt anyone here is naive enough to think such a thing won't end up used and abused over the most banal bull gak the internet can produce. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with what has been said, but elevating what has been said into a personal vendetta. Hate is a disease, but so is whatever the hell this kick starter thinks it will achieve.
A lot of cyber bullying happens because there are no real consequences for the bully. How do we get real consequences for bullies without stepping on people's rights?
There were apparently some thoughts that this was a potential media stunt or something. There's apparently going to be a article tomorrow from socialautopsy?
There's a good sentnace in there that basicaly sums up my opinion on the issue.
Think about it. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech
Sorry, posting from my phone so cut off more than I meant.
That quote is all well and good except it is used as an excuse against critcizing ideas. I don't know how many times I've seen a bigot try to say their right to free speech is being trampled on when people disagree (even forcefully) with them.
Oh, yes, I don't say we shouldn't disagree, call them donkey-caves (because they are) and exert that sort of social pressure on them. I just pause at this sort of things.
Kilkrazy wrote: It strikes me as a well-intentioned project by an enthusiastic group who haven't thought through all the implications and what could go wrong.
Hrm, I think they know exactly what they're doing, if you're posting someone's place of employment, residence, schools, etc, in this context you're basically suggesting people go do something, you're just being coy about it. As much as I usually want to err on the "never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity", if they have the expertise they're claiming then there's absolutely no way that they don't realize that such a service is essentially tailor made for abuse and harrassment.
EDIT: upon some further research and looking at the other comments, looks like it's possible it may have been a stunt of some sort, but either way it does not look like it's going to progress on Kickstarter.
There is also the issue that they're putting the personal information of children on the internet for any old stranger to see. It doesn't take a genius to see how badly that can go.
Actually, if someone wanted to kill this project stone dead they could accuse it of beinf a service that posts the addresses of children for potential pedophiles/child abductors to find. May not be accurate but it sure would raise a stink.
What is a digital footprint?
Users submit a screenshot of a person’s hate-fueled social media post, which is then used to create a profile that includes their full name, place of employment, city of residence and schools.
Sounds like a doxing service
Well, there are various definitions. Here's one I found by the Bar.
Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits.
There's a good sentnace in there that basicaly sums up my opinion on the issue.
Think about it. It’s always easier to defend someone’s right to say something with which you agree. But in a free society, you also have a duty to defend speech to which you may strongly object.
I would be very interested in hearing the criteria that they use to determine what is "hate speech" - is that the criteria that this start up company is using?
skyth wrote: A lot of cyber bullying happens because there are no real consequences for the bully. How do we get real consequences for bullies without stepping on people's rights?
We had a cyber bullying thing on the books in one of our provinces here in canada and it didn't end well, it was revoked because it was grossly misused. The more sensitive in society call everything bullying, often when it's simply people playing devil's advocate to their opinion. If you look at how insane the individuals involved in the twitter harassment case really were, you can see the problem with any laws based on people's fee fee's.
MrDwhitey wrote: There were apparently some thoughts that this was a potential media stunt or something. There's apparently going to be a article tomorrow from socialautopsy?
Let me guess: it'll involve references to misogyny, hate mobs and gamergate?
LordofHats wrote: Agree with skyth. More often than not, I see trumpeting of "free speech" come with a veiled demand that they be allowed to speak and not have to hear any response that isn't agreement. I suppose that's free speech too, but if you're looking to hold an opinion and never once be criticized for it, you probably should just keep your mouth shut because free speech just doesn't work that way.
Lording over people the threat of public shaming however isn't free speech. That's threatening lively hood, privacy, and peace of mind and I doubt anyone here is naive enough to think such a thing won't end up used and abused over the most banal bull gak the internet can produce. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with what has been said, but elevating what has been said into a personal vendetta. Hate is a disease, but so is whatever the hell this kick starter thinks it will achieve.
I agree with you. At the same time, if people make vicious hateful personal attacks on individuals or groups in public forums like Facebook, newspaper comment pages, and Twitter, they cannot expect to be defended on the basis that it is "free speech".
There are in fact many laws limiting so-called free speech, incluing libel, threats and menaces, and in much of the western world, race and religion hate laws. These are what should be employed to fight against the trolls.
It requires the cooperation of Facebook and Twitter, though, and they want to do the least amount of work on this issue, so I don't think much will happen until and unless people begin to desert those platfoms because of the trolls.
Project's funding has been suspended by Kickstarter, anyway.
Debate can still continue, though. What would we be ready to do in the name of what we feel good for humanity? Probably a lot of things that are paved in Hell.
It's worth noting there are already trolls who go past 'hate' speech and start organising meat search and harassment campaigns against people and groups they take as opponents online.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's worth noting there are already trolls who go past 'hate' speech and start organising meat search and harassment campaigns against people and groups they take as opponents online.
I've picked this example simply because I noticed it on the BBC a couple of days go. No doubt there are more examples if we look for them.
Yep. This is why I've given up Facebook and Twitter, trying to reduce my online footprint. Unfortunately this is not the first story I've seen like this, people love to go out and harass others through the safety of the internet.
The other most notable trick is SWATing, i.e. calling a fake 911 call on someone, usually a livestreamer, and claiming there's an active shooter, resulting in said person getting harassed by SWAT teams.
Wouldn't most emergency calls record the caller's phone number? Shouldn't be that hard seem to be track them down with that. Then again, I know next to nothing about it, so I wouldn't know.
Here's a few comments from their Kickstarter page. "Brittany" appears to be associated with the project.
Newguy 2 days ago
It's not clear to me how the database will be used, or how it will be populated. Could you please clarify?
Internet Guy 2 days ago
Won't this lead to a place of thought conformity? Imagine if a person anonymously declares an unpopular opinion and your website links that opinion to their "place of employment." That has the very real effect of someone losing their job. How is that progress? If a person fears expressing an unpopular opinion, and doesn't because it could cost them their job, isn't that in itself a form of cyberbullying?
Let's say Jane holds an opinion on abortion and the environment in which they live and work believes counter to their belief. If they find out Jane expresses that unpopular opinion, the people where Jane lives and works could ostracized that her.
Let's say there is a young girl in the Arab world that believes in women's rights, but she has to post her thoughts anonymously. If the community or government found out who is expressing an opinion that is not in line with the group think, then that person is going to be ostracized and their voice and opinion will be silenced.
Anonymity can do good as mush as it can do bad. My point is that your site could be used to cyberbully people into silence and fear or freely expressing a valid unpopular opinion.
Brittany 2 days ago
I just want to stress we are only publishing hate speech as defined by the law. "hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group." Hate speech isn't saying "I hate the jets", hate speech is saying "Any person who supports the Jets I am going to have them lynched because they are a dirty explicits." Big difference between having a difference in opinion and actually threatening someone.
We will not accept posts from their personal Facebook pages. More so, posts of hate speech that "said submitted profile" are commenting on public pages. For example of a post that is submitted, please view Caitlyn Jenner's official Facebook page. There are hundreds of posts inciting harm towards her and other trans people. These people have their real social media profiles and in their bio already have listed their job and city. We would not take any additional steps of trying to find their addresses. Also once we make our database public, you would have to have a persons name to search. You cannot just type in a topic such as "racist posts". And once these profiles are submitted they will be deleted after 365 days if there aren't any additional submissions. We are staying away from posts from places like 4chan and twitter, simply because there are more fake profiles. I hope I answered some of your concerns. Again we are in beta stages so any constructive criticism will be helpful. We also do not allowing commenting because we do not want people trolling trolls.
Newguy 2 days ago
Brittany,
Thank you for clarifying. I guess I'm still confused.
(One thing you might consider is showing this campaign page to a friend or family member who doesn't already know all about it. Then ask them to summarize or explain what the database is/does. I suspect that none would be able to explain it)
The database is for publishing hate speech... Found where? Or once we have hate speech by person XYZ, we can search "XYZ" to find more hate speech by them?
What sites are you crawling, if not twitter and FB?
What's the point of collecting this data? Isn't one piece of hate speech by each author sufficient to classify them as a jerk?
Brittany 2 days ago
Hello newguy, that is a great suggestion and a great way to have an objective view. I will look into that within the next 48 hours.
To answer your question, the point of this is not to classify someone as jerk or put any type of labeling. It's simply, in their words only. We will not allow commenting or the ability to search for posts alone. For example, if you were an employer, you can do a search on social autopsy and see if a new hire has any entries submitted. Already now, many employers are now checking social media pages of interviewees and determine based on their presence whether or not they will hire the particular individual. We are aggregating information that is already readily available.
And to clarify we do have posts from public Facebook pages, because it is easier to identify if a profile is an actual person.
People must also submit URLS and have a screenshot that shows a post in its entirety, just so people cannot antagonize someone into saying something abusive, just to submit them to social autopsy.
Thank you for asking this question politely and being considerate. I understand how this may appear to infringe on people's first amendment rights or can cause bullying, but I assure you we are taking our time to take all precautions necessary.
Also if you have any suggestions please feel free to send. We are in beta stages and are taking this very seriously and do not want this to be used as a tool to hurt others.
Deborah Schumacher 2 days ago
"I just want to stress we are only publishing hate speech as defined by the law"
Which laws? The Internet is a global commodity and Hate Laws vary by country. Look at these Europen differences for a start. http://www.legal-project.org/issues/european-hate-speech-laws I have to admit, having my personal comments linked my employer is troublesome, even if you have to interpert that what I've said is "hateful language". Screenshots can be doctored, tweets can be deleted, facebook posts removed.
Ste Prescott 1 day ago
They want to build a website but can't keep their own blog site up? http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/http://www.degree180.com Also, the only benefit of this site is that someone who is being bullied might be able to take a name to the police. It is most likely going to cause people to loose their job over expressing opinions. Yes Internet is full of trolls but, welcome to the Internet.
Ste Prescott 1 day ago
Furthermore, how are you planning on linking fake accounts to real people? What happens if you wrongly link a person to a fake account? Like trolls, the stupid are everywhere and people believe everything they see on the Internet. So people could see your site linking a person to a comment wrongly and then believing it without questioning.
Otaku Kani about 17 hours ago
Thank goodness this campaign was suspended as it just totally reeked of hanging 6 pointed stars on people, their homes and businesses and sending them off to concentration camps. Throughout history, there have been those who have boasted of being "patriots", much like these women in this campaign claim, and believed that they were also serving their countries best interest. Only to become some of the biggest tyrants and dictators this world has ever known. I would find it difficult to believe that this group of women creators have never sat among themselves and made catty comments of those around themselves for their shoes or style of dress. Or shunned somebody for their looks or because they "didn't fit in" to their idea of social normalcy. Perhaps these creators need to focus on what is wrong with their need to place people into defined categories that would punish and shun others from acceptance... the same role that their suggested offenders do when they use the internet in the actions to bully or embarass others. Well, at least Kickstarter has stopped this small group of cyber bullies from committing hurt and pain to others, and punishing the alleged businesses of those offenders without a trial.
skyth wrote: A lot of cyber bullying happens because there are no real consequences for the bully. How do we get real consequences for bullies without stepping on people's rights?
Parenting intensified
Really should start with the whole teach children that people online saying mean things means nothing.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Wouldn't most emergency calls record the caller's phone number? Shouldn't be that hard seem to be track them down with that. Then again, I know next to nothing about it, so I wouldn't know.
What if the number is with-held? What if its made from a public telephone? What if its a disposable PAYG or burner phone?
Co'tor Shas wrote: Wouldn't most emergency calls record the caller's phone number? Shouldn't be that hard seem to be track them down with that. Then again, I know next to nothing about it, so I wouldn't know.
What if the number is with-held? What if its made from a public telephone? What if its a disposable PAYG or burner phone?
Well in those cases you can't, but somehow I don't really think of people who call in fake police calls as the sort of people who think that far ahead.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Wouldn't most emergency calls record the caller's phone number? Shouldn't be that hard seem to be track them down with that. Then again, I know next to nothing about it, so I wouldn't know.
What if the number is with-held? What if its made from a public telephone? What if its a disposable PAYG or burner phone?
Well in those cases you can't, but somehow I don't really think of people who call in fake police calls as the sort of people who think that far ahead.
I think you underestimate them. People who engage in this behavior usually get the person's address from their IP address, then go from there. It's not rocket science, but it takes some work. I don't think a $5 burner phone is impossible
The Kickstarter campaign may have been suspended, but the creators have described it as "great news!" and it appears they may have found alternative funding. And it turns out the database, though not yet public, is already operational and full of profiles. Apparently they've been trawling twitter for people making negative posts about public figures like Miley Cyrus and Caitlyn Jenner to fill their database.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: 1) Its a gross violation of privacy. Had a trivial but heated argument on Facebook with insults made by both sides? Someone with an axe to grind may choose to submit a profile for you to a database for the entire world to see, maybe taking the original argument completely out of context or telling only half the story. Apparently profiles can be searched for by Name and Employer. This can and will be used as a weapon to get people fired.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with this. Social media posts are public by definition. If you don't want your employer to see you posting hate speech then don't post hate speech. The fact that someone doesn't want to suffer the consequences of things they say doesn't mean that it's suddenly a privacy issue.
3)The lack of due process. Cyber bullying is awful and should be tackled but creating a public database of people's behaviours is NOT an appropriate way to go about it. Genuine instances of cyber bullying and stalking should be pursued through proper channels, by reporting it to Facebook, Twitter, parents, schools or the Police. Ironically, creating a public database is itself a form of cyber bullying and cyber stalking, and is little more than online vigilantism.
Why is due process an issue? This is not a government program, it's just one person/group posting their own opinions. You don't have a right to "due process" before someone says their opinion about you. You are of course free to dispute their credibility, but all you can expect to do is convince people to stop listening to them.
As for reporting it, that's a rather idealistic way of looking at things. Bad behavior like this often goes unpunished: police say "it's just the internet" or "that's offensive but not illegal", social media sites take so long to respond that the damage is already done, etc.
4) Who decides what is and is not hate speech?
Whoever is creating the site. It's not like this is anything more than a statement of "my opinion is that the following is offensive", so the answer to "who decides" is pretty clearly implied.
Would you like to address any of the actual points I've made, or is "you're a Bad Person for defending Bad People" the entire extent of your counter-argument?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: 1) Its a gross violation of privacy. Had a trivial but heated argument on Facebook with insults made by both sides? Someone with an axe to grind may choose to submit a profile for you to a database for the entire world to see, maybe taking the original argument completely out of context or telling only half the story. Apparently profiles can be searched for by Name and Employer. This can and will be used as a weapon to get people fired.
Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with this. Social media posts are public by definition. If you don't want your employer to see you posting hate speech then don't post hate speech. The fact that someone doesn't want to suffer the consequences of things they say doesn't mean that it's suddenly a privacy issue.
Don't you see how this can be used as a weapon? People can and will use it for extortion, and to conduct hate campaigns against people they have a personal grudge against, or people who've engaged in wrongthink.
3)The lack of due process. Cyber bullying is awful and should be tackled but creating a public database of people's behaviours is NOT an appropriate way to go about it. Genuine instances of cyber bullying and stalking should be pursued through proper channels, by reporting it to Facebook, Twitter, parents, schools or the Police. Ironically, creating a public database is itself a form of cyber bullying and cyber stalking, and is little more than online vigilantism.
Why is due process an issue? This is not a government program, it's just one person/group posting their own opinions. You don't have a right to "due process" before someone says their opinion about you. You are of course free to dispute their credibility, but all you can expect to do is convince people to stop listening to them.
So you're in favour of online vigilantism?
As for reporting it, that's a rather idealistic way of looking at things. Bad behavior like this often goes unpunished: police say "it's just the internet" or "that's offensive but not illegal", social media sites take so long to respond that the damage is already done, etc.
And yet, those are the proper channels for dealing with this. Social media sites, police forces, schools, parents. If there problems with those channels and they aren't working the way they should to deal with instances of cyber bullying, reform them. Cyber bullying, doxxing and cyber stalking is not the right way to deal with cyber bullying.
What you're saying is "If you don't get the result you want? Take the law into your own hands".
4) Who decides what is and is not hate speech?
Whoever is creating the site. It's not like this is anything more than a statement of "my opinion is that the following is offensive", so the answer to "who decides" is pretty clearly implied.
They're creating a public database of people and linking them to schools, employers, family members, including minors. They're online vigilantes directly encouraging and enabling cyber bullying, cyber stalking, extortion and hell, possibly even pedophilia.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Don't you see how this can be used as a weapon? People can and will use it for extortion, and to conduct hate campaigns against people they have a personal grudge against, or people who've engaged in wrongthink.
I don't see how this can be used as a weapon, because the only way to be in the database is to have posted offensive material in public. The only way an innocent person could be vulnerable to abuse would be if the site has no verification mechanism at all and people can submit fake posts, but in that case it will have absolutely zero credibility and an employer's only response to a report is going to be "who cares if my employee is in the database, it's all fake troll posts".
So you're in favour of online vigilantism?
Define "vigilantism", preferably in a neutral and factual manner instead of attempting to bias the entire subject in your favor.
And yet, those are the proper channels for dealing with this. Social media sites, police forces, schools, parents. If there problems with those channels and they aren't working the way they should to deal with instances of cyber bullying, reform them. Cyber bullying, doxxing and cyber stalking is not the right way to deal with cyber bullying.
Proper channels according to who? You?
What you're saying is "If you don't get the result you want? Take the law into your own hands".
Except you're missing the fact that many of these things are not illegal. Posting KKK material is entirely legal, despite the fact that most people find it incredibly offensive. It's not a question of "the police won't deal with this", it's a situation where the law has nothing to do with it. So what exactly are you trying to say here? That if the police won't arrest someone for doing something then we shouldn't ever be allowed to criticize that person, because that would be "taking the law into our own hands"?
They're creating a public database of people and linking them to schools, employers, family members, including minors. They're online vigilantes directly encouraging and enabling cyber bullying, cyber stalking, extortion and hell, possibly even pedophilia.
That's not a response to what I said. You asked who decides what is hate speech, I pointed out that "whoever is running the database" is the obvious answer to the question. Listing a bunch of scary-sounding words about the database doesn't have anything to do with this.
The only way an innocent person could be vulnerable to abuse would be if the site has no verification mechanism at all and people can submit fake posts, but in that case it will have absolutely zero credibility and an employer's only response to a report is going to be "who cares if my employee is in the database, it's all fake troll posts".
Thats a remarkably naive and complacent attitude. If a company's public reputation has been dragged through the mud by their association with somebody who's been wrongly linked to this database, they're not going to care if the victim is later proven innocent. The damage is already done, all they'll care about is damage control and divesting themselves of that association ASAP. Just look
Define "vigilantism", preferably in a neutral and factual manner instead of attempting to bias the entire subject in your favor.
I'm sorry, is that supposed to be an actual argument? Cyber bullying and trolling is a crime in many countries, not to mention against the Terms of use of social media sites, and as such there are actual objective "proper channels" to pursue complaints through. Meaning the Police.
Except you're missing the fact that many of these things are not illegal.
You're missing the fact that the website is not about KKK material, its about instances of trolling and hate messages sent directly to actual victims. Which is illegal and against the TOU of social media sites.
That's not a response to what I said. You asked who decides what is hate speech, I pointed out that "whoever is running the database" is the obvious answer to the question. Listing a bunch of scary-sounding words about the database doesn't have anything to do with this.
I know, I started typing out a response to that point, scrapped it, then later wrote that as a new and seperate point. Regard it as a new argument, not a response to your argument.
This however is a response. Do you not see how partisan this database will be? You really don't see a problem with these people setting themselves up as judge, jury and executioner?
What about hate messages sent to notable figures known to engage in Wrong Think, such as people linked to GamerGate like TotalBiscuit? (who gets hate messages on a daily basis relating to his cancer). Do you think they'll accept submissions of hate messages sent to people they disapprove of and are ideologically or politically opposed to?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Here's a few comments from their Kickstarter page. "Brittany" appears to be associated with the project.
Newguy 2 days ago
It's not clear to me how the database will be used, or how it will be populated. Could you please clarify?
Internet Guy 2 days ago
Won't this lead to a place of thought conformity? Imagine if a person anonymously declares an unpopular opinion and your website links that opinion to their "place of employment." That has the very real effect of someone losing their job. How is that progress? If a person fears expressing an unpopular opinion, and doesn't because it could cost them their job, isn't that in itself a form of cyberbullying?
Let's say Jane holds an opinion on abortion and the environment in which they live and work believes counter to their belief. If they find out Jane expresses that unpopular opinion, the people where Jane lives and works could ostracized that her.
Let's say there is a young girl in the Arab world that believes in women's rights, but she has to post her thoughts anonymously. If the community or government found out who is expressing an opinion that is not in line with the group think, then that person is going to be ostracized and their voice and opinion will be silenced.
Anonymity can do good as mush as it can do bad. My point is that your site could be used to cyberbully people into silence and fear or freely expressing a valid unpopular opinion.
Brittany 2 days ago
I just want to stress we are only publishing hate speech as defined by the law. "hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group." Hate speech isn't saying "I hate the jets", hate speech is saying "Any person who supports the Jets I am going to have them lynched because they are a dirty explicits." Big difference between having a difference in opinion and actually threatening someone.
We will not accept posts from their personal Facebook pages. More so, posts of hate speech that "said submitted profile" are commenting on public pages. For example of a post that is submitted, please view Caitlyn Jenner's official Facebook page. There are hundreds of posts inciting harm towards her and other trans people. These people have their real social media profiles and in their bio already have listed their job and city. We would not take any additional steps of trying to find their addresses. Also once we make our database public, you would have to have a persons name to search. You cannot just type in a topic such as "racist posts". And once these profiles are submitted they will be deleted after 365 days if there aren't any additional submissions. We are staying away from posts from places like 4chan and twitter, simply because there are more fake profiles. I hope I answered some of your concerns. Again we are in beta stages so any constructive criticism will be helpful. We also do not allowing commenting because we do not want people trolling trolls.
Newguy 2 days ago
Brittany,
Thank you for clarifying. I guess I'm still confused.
(One thing you might consider is showing this campaign page to a friend or family member who doesn't already know all about it. Then ask them to summarize or explain what the database is/does. I suspect that none would be able to explain it)
The database is for publishing hate speech... Found where? Or once we have hate speech by person XYZ, we can search "XYZ" to find more hate speech by them?
What sites are you crawling, if not twitter and FB?
What's the point of collecting this data? Isn't one piece of hate speech by each author sufficient to classify them as a jerk?
Brittany 2 days ago
Hello newguy, that is a great suggestion and a great way to have an objective view. I will look into that within the next 48 hours.
To answer your question, the point of this is not to classify someone as jerk or put any type of labeling. It's simply, in their words only. We will not allow commenting or the ability to search for posts alone. For example, if you were an employer, you can do a search on social autopsy and see if a new hire has any entries submitted. Already now, many employers are now checking social media pages of interviewees and determine based on their presence whether or not they will hire the particular individual. We are aggregating information that is already readily available.
And to clarify we do have posts from public Facebook pages, because it is easier to identify if a profile is an actual person.
People must also submit URLS and have a screenshot that shows a post in its entirety, just so people cannot antagonize someone into saying something abusive, just to submit them to social autopsy.
Thank you for asking this question politely and being considerate. I understand how this may appear to infringe on people's first amendment rights or can cause bullying, but I assure you we are taking our time to take all precautions necessary.
Also if you have any suggestions please feel free to send. We are in beta stages and are taking this very seriously and do not want this to be used as a tool to hurt others.
Deborah Schumacher 2 days ago
"I just want to stress we are only publishing hate speech as defined by the law"
Which laws? The Internet is a global commodity and Hate Laws vary by country. Look at these Europen differences for a start. http://www.legal-project.org/issues/european-hate-speech-laws I have to admit, having my personal comments linked my employer is troublesome, even if you have to interpert that what I've said is "hateful language". Screenshots can be doctored, tweets can be deleted, facebook posts removed.
Ste Prescott 1 day ago
They want to build a website but can't keep their own blog site up? http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/http://www.degree180.com Also, the only benefit of this site is that someone who is being bullied might be able to take a name to the police. It is most likely going to cause people to loose their job over expressing opinions. Yes Internet is full of trolls but, welcome to the Internet.
Ste Prescott 1 day ago
Furthermore, how are you planning on linking fake accounts to real people? What happens if you wrongly link a person to a fake account? Like trolls, the stupid are everywhere and people believe everything they see on the Internet. So people could see your site linking a person to a comment wrongly and then believing it without questioning.
Otaku Kani about 17 hours ago
Thank goodness this campaign was suspended as it just totally reeked of hanging 6 pointed stars on people, their homes and businesses and sending them off to concentration camps. Throughout history, there have been those who have boasted of being "patriots", much like these women in this campaign claim, and believed that they were also serving their countries best interest. Only to become some of the biggest tyrants and dictators this world has ever known. I would find it difficult to believe that this group of women creators have never sat among themselves and made catty comments of those around themselves for their shoes or style of dress. Or shunned somebody for their looks or because they "didn't fit in" to their idea of social normalcy. Perhaps these creators need to focus on what is wrong with their need to place people into defined categories that would punish and shun others from acceptance... the same role that their suggested offenders do when they use the internet in the actions to bully or embarass others. Well, at least Kickstarter has stopped this small group of cyber bullies from committing hurt and pain to others, and punishing the alleged businesses of those offenders without a trial.
So how could employers search their database? I thought from their FAQ (unable to view it anymore as their site is down) said that you could not search by a person's name, only the category of posts.
Since they have no way of vetting that the statements attributed to the accounts in the profile actually belong the the people the reporters claim, they're almost certainly to be publicly publishing false statements damaging to people's reputations. If only there was some kind of word to describe such a thing. Oh well even if there was I'm sure it wouldn't be a crime or anything.
So how could employers search their database? I thought from their FAQ (unable to view it anymore as their site is down) said that you could not search by a person's name, only the category of posts.
If I'm an employer I know the name of all my employees. I go to the site run an automated search for all my employee's names.
The real danger isn't from that the though. The real danger is from my earlier example.
I don't like that donkey-cave Jim Brewer, who is always cramping my style. I create a twitter account
@TheRealJimBrewer.
@TheRealJimBrewer proceeds to make lots of racist, and homophobic statements. Maybe even tell a few stories about times "Jim Brewer" got away with being racist work. Maybe @TheRealJimBrewer makes a few threatening sounding posts.
Then I, being the concerned citizen I am. Flag the @TheRealJimBrewer as belonging to the Jim Brewer I don't like. Then I forward link to the database to his boss, family and anyone with a grudge against him.
Chongara wrote: Since they have no way of vetting that the statements attributed to the accounts in the profile actually belong the the people the reporters claim, they're almost certainly to be publicly publishing false statements damaging to people's reputations. If only there was some kind of word to describe such a thing. Oh well even if there was I'm sure it wouldn't be a crime or anything.
Libel laws are notoriously difficult to prosecute though...
The ones who think they are for justice don't care as long as the "bad" guy gets it. The thing is if someone says something you don't like online Block them and if it's really bad walk away. I really wonder how the young adults will hold up once gak hits the fan.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Thats a remarkably naive and complacent attitude. If a company's public reputation has been dragged through the mud by their association with somebody who's been wrongly linked to this database, they're not going to care if the victim is later proven innocent. The damage is already done, all they'll care about is damage control and divesting themselves of that association ASAP. Just look
But how exactly is someone going to be wrongly linked to the database? For it to become more than just some random person posting pictures of conversations while everyone ignores them the operators would need to establish their credibility. For example, by forcing submissions to be in the form of a link to the offensive post and then having the database itself pull the quotes out. A database that lets random people submit screenshots of a supposed conversation will have zero credibility because it's so easy to create fake ones.
Ok, since you want to be rude and do it that way, we'll go with the top definition in the google search results:
any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime. adjective. 3. done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures: vigilante justice.
There is no violence, so that definition is clearly out. And it isn't really taking the law into one's own hands, since the database is an attempt to express an unfavorable opinion of legal behavior, not to enforce existing laws.
I'm sorry, is that supposed to be an actual argument? Cyber bullying and trolling is a crime in many countries, not to mention against the Terms of use of social media sites, and as such there are actual objective "proper channels" to pursue complaints through. Meaning the Police.
First of all, trolling and cyber bullying are not the same thing. Trolling is not illegal, nor should it be illegal. And bad behavior on the internet can be inappropriate while still falling short of illegal cyber bullying. Reporting legal but offensive behavior to the police is just wasting their time and yours.
Second, of course it's an actual argument. Why is the "proper channel" for dealing with inappropriate behavior reporting it to facebook/twitter/etc rather than public criticism of the person who posted it? Who decided this? You?
You're missing the fact that the website is not about KKK material, its about instances of trolling and hate messages sent directly to actual victims. Which is illegal and against the TOU of social media sites.
Nope. The OP clearly states that it includes offensive behavior in general, not just direct messages:
Absolutely not. Each and every submission goes through a process in which our team determines whether or not the user is just expressing an opinion or exercising harmful speech. There is a big difference between “F*** the Patriots. Go Giants! ” and “I hope Tom Brady dies, and his wife is raped”.
First of all, trolling and cyber bullying are not the same thing. Trolling is not illegal, nor should it be illegal. And bad behavior on the internet can be inappropriate while still falling short of illegal cyber bullying. Reporting legal but offensive behavior to the police is just wasting their time and yours.
I don't know what the laws are in the USA, but trolling IS illegal in the UK under the Malicious Communications Act.
According to Internet sources, 'trolling' (also known as cyber bullying or Internet-bullying) is the anti-social act of causing personal conflict and controversy online. It has been named ‘trolling’ after the wicked troll creatures of children's tales. In the early days of the Internet, it was labelled as ‘Flaming’.I Hate You
Trolling is recognised as deliberately inflicting hatred, bigotry, racism, misogyny, or just simple bickering between others. People who partake in ‘trolling’ are referred to as ‘trolls’. They use any environment where they are allowed to make public comments, such as blog sites, social networks (like Facebook® and Twitter®), news sites, discussion forums, and game chat.
Unfortunately, trolling is a phenomenon that has swept across websites in recent years. Supporters argue it's about humour or freedom of speech. However, for some the ferocity and personal nature of the abuse causes great distress.
One of the first high-profile cases emerged in the US state of Missouri in 2006, when 13-year-old Megan Meier took her own life after being bullied online.
Internet experts say the key is not to "feed the troll" by offering them a response.
Is trolling an offence?
Persons engaging in Internet trolling are immediately committing an offence under the Malicious Communications Act.Internet bullying
The difficulty arises when identifying offenders in Internet trolling, as these offences tend to be committed using made up ‘usernames’ or fake profiles.
The Malicious Communications Act states:
• Any person who sends a letter, electronic communication or article of any description to a person that conveys a message that is indecent or highly offensive, a threat or false information. If the reason for that communication was to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person, then the sender is guilty of an offence.
• This includes mobile phones and the Internet (any form of electronic communication).
• The offence occurs whether those targeted actually receive the message or not.
Second, of course it's an actual argument. Why is the "proper channel" for dealing with inappropriate behavior reporting it to facebook/twitter/etc rather than public criticism of the person who posted it? Who decided this? You?
No, the Law. How many times must I restate my answer until you accept that I'm not changing it? Whatever the "proper channels" are, online vigilantism are not one of them.
Chongara wrote: The real danger isn't from that the though. The real danger is from my earlier example.
I don't like that donkey-cave Jim Brewer, who is always cramping my style. I create a twitter account
@TheRealJimBrewer.
@TheRealJimBrewer proceeds to make lots of racist, and homophobic statements. Maybe even tell a few stories about times "Jim Brewer" got away with being racist work. Maybe @TheRealJimBrewer makes a few threatening sounding posts.
Then I, being the concerned citizen I am. Flag the @TheRealJimBrewer as belonging to the Jim Brewer I don't like. Then I forward link to the database to his boss, family and anyone with a grudge against him.
Which then becomes a question of how credible the fake account is when the real person says "this is a troll account, I never posted that". I suspect that it's a lot harder than simply making a troll account to get someone fired or in serious family trouble.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I don't know what the laws are in the USA, but trolling IS illegal in the UK under the Malicious Communications Act.
Ok, that's just an incoherent mess (referring to "trolling" as "bickering between people" and then declaring that "trolling" is illegal). Going by the standard definition of "posting something to get a reaction out of people" I sincerely hope that trolling is not illegal in the UK, or your country has some serious free speech issues.
No, the Law. How many times must I restate my answer until you accept that I'm not changing it? Whatever the "proper channels" are, online vigilantism are not one of them.
How many times must I restate the fact that many of the things that this database was supposed to involve are not illegal?
Chongara wrote: The real danger isn't from that the though. The real danger is from my earlier example.
I don't like that donkey-cave Jim Brewer, who is always cramping my style. I create a twitter account
@TheRealJimBrewer.
@TheRealJimBrewer proceeds to make lots of racist, and homophobic statements. Maybe even tell a few stories about times "Jim Brewer" got away with being racist work. Maybe @TheRealJimBrewer makes a few threatening sounding posts.
Then I, being the concerned citizen I am. Flag the @TheRealJimBrewer as belonging to the Jim Brewer I don't like. Then I forward link to the database to his boss, family and anyone with a grudge against him.
Which then becomes a question of how credible the fake account is when the real person says "this is a troll account, I never posted that". I suspect that it's a lot harder than simply making a troll account to get someone fired or in serious family trouble.
It's as credible as any of Jim Brewer's real accounts would be. What's publicly available is a screen name and some posts. There is no way to actually tell who is behind it and this website relies on unverified anonymous attributions from 3rd parties. A real account and a "Troll" account are literally indistinguishable under the system. And individual is credited with saying whatever any random person feels like claiming they said. So long as what they claim that person says is sufficiently offensive it goes in the database attached to their real name regardless of if they said it or not. For anyone who is inclined to believe the system fact & fiction are one and the same.
How many times must I restate the fact that many of the things that this database was supposed to involve are not illegal?
Bicycles aren't illegal. Baseball bats aren't illegal. Riding up to someone on your bike and then bludgeoning them with a baseball bat is illegal.
Similarly holding an opinion about what is or isn't offensive isn't illegal.
Repeating social media posts is not illegal.
Attributing things people said to them when they truthfully said so is not illegal.
However repeating and attributing social media posts to a real name and set of credentials with the intent of damaging their reputation when you have no way of verifying the truth of the connection is illegal.
Chongara wrote: It's as credible as any of Jim Brewer's real accounts would be. What's publicly available is a screen name and some posts. There is no way to actually tell who is behind it and this website relies on unverified anonymous attributions from 3rd parties. A real account and a "Troll" account are literally indistinguishable under the system. And individual is credited with saying whatever any random person feels like claiming they said. So long as what they claim that person says is sufficiently offensive it goes in the database attached to their real name regardless of if they said it or not. For anyone who is inclined to believe the system fact & fiction are one and the same.
And then what happens when Jim Brewer says "here's my real account" and it doesn't have the same name as the troll? It's not like this kind of troll account is a new thing. If the database doesn't do any kind of verification to sort out troll accounts then it just won't have any credibility and nobody will pay any attention to it.
However repeating and attributing social media posts to a real name and set of credentials with the intent of damaging their reputation when you have no way of verifying the truth of the connection is illegal.
Err, I think you're missing the context of that. The things that I said are not illegal are the posts, not the act of showing them to everyone.
As for your argument, I think you're seriously overstating the case. It is entirely legal to publish those social media posts if you have a reasonable belief that they are accurate. You aren't required to have absolute proof of their authenticity first. The only way you're going to get into legal trouble is if the original post was not at all credible and a reasonable person should have known better, bringing it to the level of a reckless disregard for the truth rather than a failure to establish absolute 100% confidence.
The site has launched, BUT it looks like the server is down and a yahoo search has it number 4 on the list and google has news on it, but not the actual site.
Chongara wrote: It's as credible as any of Jim Brewer's real accounts would be. What's publicly available is a screen name and some posts. There is no way to actually tell who is behind it and this website relies on unverified anonymous attributions from 3rd parties. A real account and a "Troll" account are literally indistinguishable under the system. And individual is credited with saying whatever any random person feels like claiming they said. So long as what they claim that person says is sufficiently offensive it goes in the database attached to their real name regardless of if they said it or not. For anyone who is inclined to believe the system fact & fiction are one and the same.
And then what happens when Jim Brewer says "here's my real account" and it doesn't have the same name as the troll? It's not like this kind of troll account is a new thing.
Suppose Jim Brewer really is @TheRealJimBrewer and he claims "I don't have a twitter account" or "Here's my real account" <Some innocuous 2nd account> that one doesn't belong to me". Again a "Real" and "Troll" account are indistinguishable.
If the database doesn't do any kind of verification to sort out troll accounts then it just won't have any credibility and nobody will pay any attention to it.
The database has no means to do verification. It will still have the ability to do as much damage as any other unverified source of information will. People don't demand evidence to believe something, they only need hear those things in a loud and emotionally compelling enough voice. An internet database like this is certainly loud enough, and the narrative it puts forward of hunting down abusive bullies is emotionally compelling. They need only hit the mark once or twice by sheer luck to have example they can point to tons of misplaced credibility.
As for your argument, I think you're seriously overstating the case. It is entirely legal to publish those social media posts if you have a reasonable belief that they are accurate. You aren't required to have absolute proof of their authenticity first. The only way you're going to get into legal trouble is if the original post was not at all credible and a reasonable person should have known better, bringing it to the level of a reckless disregard for the truth rather than a failure to establish absolute 100% confidence.
"An anonymous third party claimed this without showing any evidence" is no basis for a reasonable belief. Even conceding the point that if playing the part of the absolute fool can absolve them of legal responsibility, can we at least agree that it's unethical and shady as hell? This thing is far more readily usable as tool for bullies, liars and trolls than it is for doing any sort of good.
Chongara wrote: Suppose Jim Brewer really is @TheRealJimBrewer and he claims "I don't have a twitter account" or "Here's my real account" <Some innocuous 2nd account> that one doesn't belong to me". Again a "Real" and "Troll" account are indistinguishable.
Only if you don't look at things like posting history. I suppose it's theoretically possible that a troll could operate a fake account for months/years posting apparently-legitimate things, persuade the real person's friends to friend the troll on facebook, etc, but how plausible is that scenario? I seriously doubt that most trolls have the attention span to do something like that.
The database has no means to do verification. It will still have the ability to do as much damage as any other unverified source of information will. People don't demand evidence to believe something, they only need hear those things in a loud and emotionally compelling enough voice. An internet database like this is certainly loud enough, and the narrative it puts forward of hunting down abusive bullies is emotionally compelling. They need only hit the mark once or twice by sheer luck to have example they can point to tons of misplaced credibility.
And this is where I have to disagree. Posting accusations isn't going to get you very far if the accusation isn't credible and you have a well-established reputation for having a poor signal to noise ratio. Putting a bunch of low-credibility stuff into a database doesn't add any credibility, so all you have is the exact same situation you have now. The only way the database convinces anyone that wouldn't be convinced by some random person saying "look at this screenshot of twitter abuse" is if the database does establish some means of verification and a record of using it effectively, such that people have a reasonable belief that something posted there is likely to be legitimate.
"An anonymous third party claimed this without showing any evidence" is no basis for a reasonable belief. Even conceding the point that if playing the part of the absolute fool can absolve them of legal responsibility, can we at least agree that it's unethical and shady as hell? This thing is far more readily usable as tool for bullies, liars and trolls than it is for doing any sort of good.
It wouldn't be without evidence, it would be with screenshots/links to posts/etc. Sure, you can claim that it could be fake, but by that standard pretty much nothing on the internet is reliable.
And I'm not disputing that it seems kind of shady, I'm just pointing out that some of the arguments against it are really bad. It isn't a privacy violation, and it probably isn't going to be all that vulnerable to abuse.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm pretty sure it is very illegal to do stuff like that. Lieing to the police like that is not looked upon kindly.
Illegal but difficult to stop. How do you track down an anonymous caller?
You stop it by not treating an anonymous tip as sufficient evidence to kick in someone's door and threaten him at gunpoint. Any idiot can make a report to the police, and while that report should be investigated, it's dangerously stupid to act as if the alleged perpetrator is guilty based on nothing but the word of some random donkey-cave.
Peregrine wrote: Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with this. Social media posts are public by definition. If you don't want your employer to see you posting hate speech then don't post hate speech.
Two wrongs don't make a right and if you don't see how badly this can turn out you have been living under a rock for 3 years. We have already seen how this doxing for "good" can be used and abused.
I take that to mean you disagree with my statement, in other words, you believe you have a moral and legal obligation to protect the privacy of people who send you malicious or threatening letters and emails.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm pretty sure it is very illegal to do stuff like that. Lieing to the police like that is not looked upon kindly.
Illegal but difficult to stop. How do you track down an anonymous caller?
You stop it by not treating an anonymous tip as sufficient evidence to kick in someone's door and threaten him at gunpoint. Any idiot can make a report to the police, and while that report should be investigated, it's dangerously stupid to act as if the alleged perpetrator is guilty based on nothing but the word of some random donkey-cave.[/url]
Thing is they use life or death calls so the cops have to treat it as its real i.e. going to kill someone or planning to go on a killing spree. If the cops don't act and it happens the cops are blamed for not stopping it. You can also fake a phone number on caller ID with little work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I take that to mean you disagree with my statement, in other words, you believe you have a moral and legal obligation to protect the privacy of people who send you malicious or threatening letters and emails.
If you do it with intent to harm you are no better than them. I love how you ignore my points
AlexHolker wrote: You stop it by not treating an anonymous tip as sufficient evidence to kick in someone's door and threaten him at gunpoint. Any idiot can make a report to the police, and while that report should be investigated, it's dangerously stupid to act as if the alleged perpetrator is guilty based on nothing but the word of some random donkey-cave.
Thing is they use life or death calls so the cops have to treat it as its real i.e. going to kill someone or planning to go on a killing spree. If the cops don't act and it happens the cops are blamed for not stopping it. You can also fake a phone number on caller ID with little work.
I didn't say don't act, I said don't break into somebody's house, guns drawn, just because you got an anonymous phone call saying you should. People die in no-knock entries, and they should not be used lightly.
Peregrine wrote: And this is where I have to disagree. Posting accusations isn't going to get you very far if the accusation isn't credible and you have a well-established reputation for having a poor signal to noise ratio. Putting a bunch of low-credibility stuff into a database doesn't add any credibility, so all you have is the exact same situation you have now. The only way the database convinces anyone that wouldn't be convinced by some random person saying "look at this screenshot of twitter abuse" is if the database does establish some means of verification and a record of using it effectively, such that people have a reasonable belief that something posted there is likely to be legitimate.
That isn't how people's filters work. Some random dude says something and that naturally triggers enough skepticism that the vast majority of people will brush it off. You take that same accusation give it zero additional evidence, wrap it in a nice-looking website with a .org address, inside a formal looking database entry on an individual and an "about us" section with a well-worded message about how they're honest people fighting the good fight against the world's ills and far more people will take it seriously. Maybe not a majority, but at least a large minority.
It's exactly why those scams with with "Certified Letter: Do not discard" or "Important: Immediate Action Needed" written in red on the front get so many people. The simple trappings of legitimacy are interchangeable with actual legitimacy for those unwilling, unprepared or simply poor at being skeptical about them. Those same people wouldn't fall for a plain envelope with a letter inside "You owe me money. Please send check". A screenshot and a claim is like the "Send me money" letter, this website is the gussied up "Important: Immediate Action Needed" scam.
I like this idea, dont say things you cant stand behind. Maybe dont be a jerk and you do not have a problem..
But I also have no knternet presence, no photos no sin no facebook twoter youtube account nothing. Even my email is named john doe.
I got an idea tho hotmail, gmail facebook ect should have a little report button. If the comment sent is indeed hateful or rude. It is posted on the senders main page for a month. That way everyone can see who they really are.
skyth wrote: A lot of cyber bullying happens because there are no real consequences for the bully. How do we get real consequences for bullies without stepping on people's rights?
Yeah, that's the kicker.
Desubot wrote: Really should start with the whole teach children that people online saying mean things means nothing.
What about when people saying things online succeeds in pressuring your company to fire you or includes threats on your safety (that, yes, might just be mean people, but there are more than a few cases of it turning into real world aggression), or just plain old constant attack?
People don't have the right to privacy in order to to enable them to bully people and prevent them finding recourse against because of the right to privacy.
The key point is how the victim finds recourse. Ideally it should be done by accountable authorities like the law (justice system, etc) and the companies that run and profit from the internet and social media.
However if this cannot be arranged officially a bully is rather silly to expect their victims not to find some other way of fighting back.
The key point is that the identity of the bully is not always their actual identity. Plenty of people go under screen or assumed names, some even taking on the names or identities of other, real people.
You have to always investigate and confirm the identity of the person rather than just posting their details publically along with a list of "crimes"...
Kilkrazy wrote: People don't have the right to privacy in order to to enable them to bully people and prevent them finding recourse against because of the right to privacy.
The key point is how the victim finds recourse. Ideally it should be done by accountable authorities like the law (justice system, etc) and the companies that run and profit from the internet and social media.
However if this cannot be arranged officially a bully is rather silly to expect their victims not to find some other way of fighting back.
I agree with your points that the rights to privacy are not meant to protect internet bullying and hate crimes. However this group's solution is not the optimal answer as there is too much potential for innocent people to get hurt. It is difficult to prove people's identities on the internet and this system can be abused to target people and mess up their personal lives. It can be difficult to prove that a facebook, twitter, myspace, etc. account is not yours if you do not already have an account on that site. If they were to create a twitter account @theSignless and start posting hate speech, I cannot prove that this is not me as I do not have an account. My attempts to make the account @realtheSignless would probably be discarded as an attempt to hide my record because I am trying to claim that this just created account is more legitimate than one that could have been running for months.
Another problem that this service is going to have is that a lot of people do not use their real names or share relevant information about themselves. A lot of hate speech is going to get filed under "unkown person #XXX, twitter username: Troll123" with no way of finding if they have any alternate accounts. Too many of the real trolls are going to get away with this, especially once it gets started and people figure out the tricks to avoid appearing on their systems.
Perhaps the solution should be to encourage governments to expand laws regarding what they can police on the internet and increase moderation of social media sites. Have an international consensus on what constitutes hate speech so that it can be applied to the internet, then encourage or requite social media sites to include mods that can suspend or ban people that do not follow the rules and in cases when the hate speech violates the law, they report it to local law enforcement. People should realise that the internet is not some lawless place where they can do what want, but the way to do that is to impose the rule of law upon it, not try and publicly shame people on shifty evidence.
A better method would be to enact tort law that makes service providers liable if they do nothing to act on reports of harassment and abuse. Nothing gets a corporate body off its lazy butt faster than a winding series of expensive settlements.
LordofHats wrote: A better method would be to enact tort law that makes service providers liable if they do nothing to act on reports of harassment and abuse. Nothing gets a corporate body off its lazy butt faster than a winding series of expensive settlements.
That is an even worse idea than letting these scumbags set up their doxxing service. Just because somebody accuses you of abusing them does not mean you actually did anything, or that what you did is actually abuse.
Never underestimate the ability of some donkey-cave to take unwarranted offense, because we live in a world where there are people who will flat out murder you for drawing a picture of a thousand-year-dead historical figure.
Facebook and Twitter ought to do more in this area. Their business model is based on data-mining users and using automation to the minimum amount of work without the intervention it takes to look properly into abuse accusations.
That's why you end up with things like a "no breasts" policy that is supposed to prevent porn but also shuts down breast-feeding and breast cancer support groups.
Apparently the creator of SocialAutopsy got spammed with racist hate messages from addresses all with "gamer" in them, to a private email right after she used it to talk with Zoe Quinn, who had warned her if she kept on she'd get hate mail from gamergate.
I wonder if it would be possible to analyse the typical text patterns, key words and suchlike, of hate mail containing racist, sexist and other such bullying phrases, then use this to create a filter on your inbox to shunt such messages directly into the Spam folder.
It's probably possible now using various email rules and things, but the most common email platforms simply having a "Filter Racism" etc. option that you can turn on/off and filters using a database of known slurs would be better, as rules can get confusing. Having it ignore any contacts you select as "trusted" would help ensure that accidental filters--friends using slurs ironically etc.--are kept to a minimum.
MrDwhitey wrote: Apparently the creator of SocialAutopsy got spammed with racist hate messages from addresses all with "gamer" in them, to a private email right after she used it to talk with Zoe Quinn, who had warned her if she kept on she'd get hate mail from gamergate.
Only Zoe Quinn knew the email, apparently. Weird.
Where are you reading this?
Considering the idiocy tossed at Quinn, it'd take more than an allusion to wrongdoing and a knowing glance to get me to believe it at this point.
It's from an interview with Candace Owens with Ralph Retort.
Ralph Retort is pretty cancerous, but it wasn't him reporting it (which I wouldn't believe and would agree with dismissing it outright), it was an interview with the actual person.
So it comes from Candace Owen's own claims. Does that make it true? No, that's why I said apparently.
Edit: to be honest at this point it's looking like gak posting all over and I'm not going to bother keeping up. I'll just wait now and see what happens with this particular drama.
Anonymity protects just as many good people as it does bad. We've got a warped sense of justice ever sine the internet really took hold. We're actually happy when some idiot says or does the wrong thing and has said instance amplified to the point virality and ends up losing their ability to put food on the table for their kids, racism/sexism/ageism defeated! Mob justice and narcissistic virtue signalling for the win! I'm good person, aren't you? Validate me. I am so pious and pure.
I feel we have about as much luck ensuring all human interaction in any platform is universally positive as "the trolls" do in ensuring only negative interaction. But lets be honest, troll and bully is so overused that it's meaningless language at this point. It may as well be a colloquialism for anyone who won't agree with me or cease communication when told to shut up, by me.
I'm happy this got shut down, people who fight monsters invariably become one themselves.
Crablezworth wrote: Anonymity protects just as many good people as it does bad. ... ...
The thing is that it doesn't because bad people have no hesitation in outing good people they disagree with, while good people play by the rules.
This failed Kickstarter is some mis-guided good people trying to create a reasonable framework for fighting back, within some structured rules. But it's flawed because they haven't thought through all the potential problems.
Kilkrazy wrote: The thing is that it doesn't because bad people have no hesitation in outing good people they disagree with, while good people play by the rules.
This failed Kickstarter is some mis-guided good people trying to create a reasonable framework for fighting back, within some structured rules. But it's flawed because they haven't thought through all the potential problems.
That is an even worse idea than letting these scumbags set up their doxxing service. Just because somebody accuses you of abusing them does not mean you actually did anything, or that what you did is actually abuse.
Never underestimate the ability of some donkey-cave to take unwarranted offense, because we live in a world where there are people who will flat out murder you for drawing a picture of a thousand-year-dead historical figure.
And?
Establishing tort law isn't as simple as "you can sue for this now." It would involve laying out the expectations of service providers, and what constitutes negligence on their part.
A lot of cyber bullying I've seen results from an unwillingness on the part of service providers to acknowledge the problem. Facebook and Twitter could take a much more active stance in combating abusive and harassment behavior than they do (because right now they don't do much of anything). YouTube pretty much ignores problem users so long as they aren't accused of copy right violations, and god forbid you get accused of copy right violations cause YouTube just doesn't care if the accusation makes any sense half the time. Some places (I'm looking at your Reddit!) are only horrible places because the mods are themselves the problem and service provider does nothing to deal with them. As it stands, service providers have no real responsibilities to users. They can establish whatever terms they want, and proceed to ignore anything and everything that pleases them to ignore.
You think anyone would use DakkaDakka is YakFace actually allowed people to be as vile as they wanted, or didn't have a mod team able and willing to lay down the law? The place would burn to the ground in a week and the only users left would be trolls, and new posters too innocent to realize where they've ended up. I don't know why everyone wants to throw up unenforceable laws that will just waste police and court times (like that case in Canada recently), when there is a much more straight forward solution. A big part of online harassment and cyber bullying is a service problem. That makes it the service providers responsibility.
Crablezworth wrote: Anonymity protects just as many good people as it does bad. ... ...
The thing is that it doesn't because bad people have no hesitation in outing good people they disagree with, while good people play by the rules.
This failed Kickstarter is some mis-guided good people trying to create a reasonable framework for fighting back, within some structured rules. But it's flawed because they haven't thought through all the potential problems.
The Kickstarter may have been suspended but it appears the project is far from a failure. From their triumphal tone, I'm guessing that they probably found alternative funding.
Rosebuddy wrote: Seems more and more like this was a gamergate front from the start.
What do we have on that possibility?
The whole thing is very suspicious to me, but from my own (limited) digging, I can't find much that directly confirms such suspicions (more just a lot of weirdnesses).
That is an even worse idea than letting these scumbags set up their doxxing service. Just because somebody accuses you of abusing them does not mean you actually did anything, or that what you did is actually abuse.
Never underestimate the ability of some donkey-cave to take unwarranted offense, because we live in a world where there are people who will flat out murder you for drawing a picture of a thousand-year-dead historical figure.
And?
Establishing tort law isn't as simple as "you can sue for this now." It would involve laying out the expectations of service providers, and what constitutes negligence on their part.
A lot of cyber bullying I've seen results from an unwillingness on the part of service providers to acknowledge the problem.
In part this is because the use of these services is voluntary and users have tools to limit their interaction with other users. If you're getting lots of ugly stuff on Twitter, well, you're voluntarily entering into that arena and putting yourself out there for that, you can limit who can see your posts, block users, or cease using the service entirely. If someone is posting stuff I don't like to see on Facebook, I can unfriend them, mute their feed, block them, remove posts they tag me in, etc or remove myself from the service. Ultimately, there's tons of tools to deal with this stuff that users have at their fingertips, and people can always forward stuff to admins.
Vaktathi wrote: In part this is because the use of these services is voluntary and users have tools to limit their interaction with other users. If you're getting lots of ugly stuff on Twitter, well, you're voluntarily entering into that arena and putting yourself out there for that, you can limit who can see your posts, block users, or cease using the service entirely. If someone is posting stuff I don't like to see on Facebook, I can unfriend them, mute their feed, block them, remove posts they tag me in, etc or remove myself from the service. Ultimately, there's tons of tools to deal with this stuff that users have at their fingertips, and people can always forward stuff to admins.
I don't disagree. That's what makes this a murky thing.
To carry forward; why should I have to abandon Facebook, where all my friends and family are, because BobbyHasser69 has for whatever reason (maybe they hates hats?) decided they want to make my life miserable. I can block them, but that won't stop them from saying things about me, or saying them to people on my friends list. I can report them, but how many cases now have come up where people have reported harassment to Facebook and nothing happens?* What if this user continually creates new accounts to continue posting on my feed, or creates an entire usergroup that really only exists to harass me? Why should my continued use of a service be cut simply because another person has a bizarre obsession, and why isn't the service provider policing their users to prevent their service from becoming a tool for abuse? Especially if the worst happens and the abuse leads to real life violence and/or death, why should the service provider be completely absolved for ignoring the situation from a civil stand point? What if BobbyHasser69 could post violent flash game where you punch my face over and over again and the host of the site where the game was upload responds with "it's not copy righted by anyone who will sue us so w/e."
I don't think that's fairly brushed off on the simple grounds that participation in a service is voluntary. People who really want to go after other people will find ways to do so, especially in an online culture where company's provide the means to do so and proceed to declare that the aftermath isn't their problem.
*I'm sure Facebook responds to lots of harassment reports and probably even acts on them. Someone who got exactly what they wanted isn't exactly going to complain.
Vaktathi wrote: In part this is because the use of these services is voluntary and users have tools to limit their interaction with other users. If you're getting lots of ugly stuff on Twitter, well, you're voluntarily entering into that arena and putting yourself out there for that, you can limit who can see your posts, block users, or cease using the service entirely. If someone is posting stuff I don't like to see on Facebook, I can unfriend them, mute their feed, block them, remove posts they tag me in, etc or remove myself from the service.
Sure, but to give a real life example, you can turn up at a local park on a Sunday afternoon to take part in soapbox debates. You are volunteering to be part, and if you find the concepts or language offensive, well that's your problem. If you try to speak your ideas and get shouted down or laughed at, well that's your problem.
But if you leave and one or more of the debaters follows you home, continuing to shout at me all the way, then that's harassment, and scope for police involvement. If the people who organised the soapbox debate know the identity of the people who harassed you, they'd be required to release that information to police.
Ultimately, there's tons of tools to deal with this stuff that users have at their fingertips, and people can always forward stuff to admins.
Sure, and the issue is what happens in the cases where the admins do nothing.
Rosebuddy wrote: Seems more and more like this was a gamergate front from the start.
What do we have on that possibility?
The whole thing is very suspicious to me, but from my own (limited) digging, I can't find much that directly confirms such suspicions (more just a lot of weirdnesses).
The sudden obsession with Zoe Quinn, the aping of social justice terminology and their general obsession with "stealthy" operations. Plus the Social Autopsy people interacting with and being advised by obvious GG people on twitter. It's that or it's just another cynical cash-grab in the style of the Kony 2012 deal that went, uh, Kony 2012 even faster than the actual Kony 2012 crew.
Scary how so many here don't care about freedom as much as they care about feelings. Looks what they say about history is true. This is why I don't put out my info people will do anything to get at someone who doesn't tow the party line.
Censorship , blacklisting, or even violence is all good after all "there are no bad tactics only bad targets " . What a scary world we live in one must wonder how long till we get re education camps .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Harassment and menaces are anti-social and often illegal.
People should be able able to use social media and email without being persecuted.
There cannot be a defence for haters of, "Well, you could always run away from them, so it's all right." It isn't all right.
You can already report to the cops and block so you can't see them the fact you can't see how this can be abused scares me
Make up fake story or take satire and play it as fact to get opposing views shutdown it all ready happens on Facebook and YouTube.
Most of the time it comes back but sometimes they give up or get someone with an agenda and they disappear for good
I agree that's a danger of the internet though as I understand it the Social Autopsy site wouldn't have had any authority, unlike Facebook or the police.
Oldmike wrote: ....l "there are no bad tactics only bad targets " .....
I've seen this posted before, so I'm not having a go at you personally.
Does anyone know the context of this quote?
I could actually get behind it if the inference was, "if the target is bad, ie emailing death/rape threats to youtube personalities, then all tactics are valid"
Oldmike wrote: ....l "there are no bad tactics only bad targets " .....
I've seen this posted before, so I'm not having a go at you personally.
Does anyone know the context of this quote?
I could actually get behind it if the inference was, "if the target is bad, ie emailing death/rape threats to youtube personalities, then all tactics are valid"
I don't know where it originated, but its a commonly used term by people who are typically characterized as "SJW's".
Bob Chipman a.k.a. MovieBob has used the term for instance.
Also, this is completely irrelevant to the topic but I found it whilst looking up the previous quote.
Oldmike wrote: ....l "there are no bad tactics only bad targets " .....
I've seen this posted before, so I'm not having a go at you personally.
Does anyone know the context of this quote?
I could actually get behind it if the inference was, "if the target is bad, ie emailing death/rape threats to youtube personalities, then all tactics are valid"
I don't know where it originated, but its a commonly used term by people who are typically characterized as "SJW's".
Right, I understand it is a "SJW" quote. I am wondering about the context of that quote. Is it "all targets are bad therefore all tactics are valid"?
Also, this is completely irrelevant to the topic but I found it whilst looking up the previous quote.
Spoiler:
Ah, it's an invisible melon. I thought they were trying to conjure up a hadouken against their foes.
Right, I understand it is a "SJW" quote. I am wondering about the context of that quote. Is it "all targets are bad therefore all tactics are valid"?
See the image I posted, it shows the original conversation on twitter. And here's a direct link. It was a response to someone who suggested that Bob Chipman may be straying across the line and engaging in abuse himself. Basically, what he appears to be saying is that its not the act itself he opposes (trolling, abuse, doxxing etc), its the target. He's fine with it when its done to someone he personally dislikes.
Which makes him a massive hypocrite peddling empty rhetoric.
So before the kickstarter got removed they wanted to create something like this, just for the other side and with reference to public posts? And people are mad at one list that doesn't even exist but are okay with the other?
Mario wrote: So before the kickstarter got removed they wanted to create something like this, just for the other side and with reference to public posts? And people are mad at one list that doesn't even exist but are okay with the other?
Didn't even know that one existed, and they obviously didn't kickstart it so that's probably why no is outraged. Does that list information to the same degree as Social Autopsy was hoping to do?
So this kind of name and shame site is not new. A handy database for the deluded trolls that have chosen a side in this pathetic little culture war to mine for victims.
Here's a thought. If you feel the need to send death/rape threats, or try to get fired/blacklisted someone you have never met and only know through their online persona, take a walk. Have a think.
A rich, full life that is personally rewarding to you is out there for the taking.
Mario wrote: So before the kickstarter got removed they wanted to create something like this, just for the other side and with reference to public posts? And people are mad at one list that doesn't even exist but are okay with the other?
How can I mad at something I didn't even know existed? I've never heard of that website.
Are they engaging in doxxing, or is it just a list of prominent public figures? Theres a big difference between writing a wiki article on a public figure; and creating a database of profiles listing personal information, addresses, employers and contact details to name and shame ordinary members of the public who may or may not have engaged in hate speech (the definition of which is entirely arbitrary and subject to partisan bias).
Mario wrote: So before the kickstarter got removed they wanted to create something like this, just for the other side and with reference to public posts? And people are mad at one list that doesn't even exist but are okay with the other?
I think there's a pretty big difference in that Vox Day (the guy who made the "SJW list" site) is a proud sexist and white supremacist* with an obsessive vendetta against "SJWs", and this latest site is nothing more than another round of him screaming "SJWS SUCK TUMBLR FEMINISM RUINS EVERYTHING". With the site in the OP there's at least the possibility of it being a genuine, if misguided, attempt to stop behavior that we can all agree is not acceptable.
*For once this is not actually "everyone on the internet is Hitler" exaggeration. He has openly argued for the inherent superiority of the white race, defended honor killings as a good thing for society because they make women behave, etc.
I don't think it's at all surprising that of the few communities I stick to passionately, most of them are ruled with an iron fist.
The explosion of social media has been great in many ways, but as with everything technological the law has lagged behind. I agree with Peregrine, I can understand wanting to invent some measure of recourse, to have *something* to fall back on in the worst case scenario, but even my strong Social Justice Rogue side can see where there could be problems. Just how much time and effort can be dedicated to vetting all of that data? Does this just become another tool of harassment with false claims?
That said, John Oliver goes over the topic of cyber bullying pretty thoroughly, and I do hope we eventually figure things out for the better, even if our solutions aren't perfect.
I think there's a pretty big difference in that Vox Day (the guy who made the "SJW list" site) is a proud sexist and white supremacist* with an obsessive vendetta against "SJWs", and this latest site is nothing more than another round of him screaming "SJWS SUCK TUMBLR FEMINISM RUINS EVERYTHING". With the site in the OP there's at least the possibility of it being a genuine, if misguided, attempt to stop behavior that we can all agree is not acceptable.
*For once this is not actually "everyone on the internet is Hitler" exaggeration. He has openly argued for the inherent superiority of the white race, defended honor killings as a good thing for society because they make women behave, etc.
I know he's a special kind of crazy that's why I wondered why nobody said anything about it. Some people have even asked to be added to his list.
I just don't know if such sites would/will help. If you look at GG then anyone who they turn their attention to for a while tends to get inconvenient massages (be it twitter, e-mail, or whatever channel can be found) and that happens through anonymous accounts so a list would be more or less useless (and if it's not GG then some splinter or sister group that is, of course, totally independent). The movement prides itself in being a hashtag and leaderless so they can deflect all accusations, no matter how much that pattern correlates in each instance. Milo only lost his twitter checkmark because he slipped up once and actually said that someone deserves to be harassed and then milked that "controversy" and tried to troll people while still complaining about SJW outrage culture (he literary creates outrage to funnel pageviews on his articles).
GG already has blacklists, people use personal blocklists (there are probably also lists on the other side that compile GG people) and I don't think adding another one to this pile would help anyone, even if it was with good intentions (although now people from both sides seem to pointing fingers at each other for the newest debacle).
