Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

Considering they have a hard time shutting down ISIS/ISIL recruitment accounts, I have my doubts.

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.

...


That's weird.

Seems more and more like this was a gamergate front from the start.

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.

Another idea, might it be possible to do something like this anti-global warming sceptic Twitter bot, but keyed on racism and so on?

That'd be good actually, just send bs straight to the spam/delete folder.

I like that.

I doubt anyone is going to be sending anything particularly worth reading if it contains repeated racist insults.

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.

You give them more credit than they deserve.

 AlexHolker wrote:

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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 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).

 LordofHats wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

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.

 Pendix wrote:

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.

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.

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

How what can be abused?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How what can be abused?

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"

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How what can be abused?

Are you not at all familiar with Doxing?

 feeder wrote:

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.

 kronk wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
How what can be abused?

Are you not at all familiar with Doxing?

Or "meat search" as it's called in China.