How do we realistically stop harassment online?

[Inglorious891]

With Anita going into hiding and all of the shit flinging going on related to the Gamergate happenings, the subject of harassment, trolling, and general nastiness on the internet is currently a hot topic among gamers. With this there are plenty of people who are calling for people to just stop with being dicks so civilizied communication can take place. Obviously, this isn't working; harassment has been happening for years, and telling people to stop isn't improving the situation much. Which leads me to my main question.

How do we stop harassment online? And I mean a solution that can thin out most if not all of the dickheads on twitter, Youtube, Xbox Live, etc.

Despite what should be an obvious question, I haven't heard any good solutions to this problems. Well, that's actually not entirely true. I have seen two solutions: for people to police their communities better, and aformentioned calls to stop being dicks. Neither of which are good solutions, but more on that later. Personally, I've been thinking of ways to stop harassment but I'm having issues finding a solution that doesn't create bigger problems. Anonymity is the source of the evil, as most people can agree; if there were serious reprocautions to people sending threats of physical harm, people wouldn't send threats like that. But how do you fix that? And what solution wouldn't harm innocent people?

Before I continue, I do want to define harassment as I see it. Physical threats or actions that break the law and throw people into physical danger (SWATing, etc.) is harassment and should be the primary target for any anti-harassment campaigns. Being called a ****** on Xbox Live isn't harassment, and someone purposely making you angry on the internet for laughs isn't harassment. The former is just general dickheadness and should be ignored, and the latter isn't something I'm against, well, because I do it. Before you rip my head off, let me explain.

Me and one specific friend play Left 4 Dead in a certain way. Generally speaking, we betray eachother and the two randoms damn near every minute and try to make it to the saferoom alone. We're both being dickheads, but we try to be entertaining with it. We don't call people faggots and say we want to murder them, we're just dickheads online occasionally. I've done the same thing in TF2 where my only goal is to either ruin the game with congaing or get in people's ways in some annoying way. I don't mind trolling and assholery as long as it's against someone that can deal with it and if it's clever. Saying your going to rape someone on twitter isn't funny or clever, it's immature. Yet, there are tons of videos online of people pissing eachother off for laughs, and I don't see any issues with this as long as the methods aren't too insultive for whatever reason and are actually clever. This isn't harassment, it's just dickheadedness. Funny dickheadedness? That's for each individual person to decide, but it shouldn't be stompted out or called out on like people are calling out harassment on twitter.

If harassment is going to be stompted out, how are we going to define harassment? Is the above example harassment, and should it be removed? How would you do it? Would you make it so every person on the internet can look up eachother's address, see pictures of eachother, etc. so anonymity is removed in an effort to scare people into not being dicks? How, then, would you go about with punishment? Ban people from the internet, fines, etc.? Who decides what is and isn't harassment? If you classify any meanness on the internet as harassment any committee that issues punishments is going to be so clogged with reports nothing will get done. Personally, I just don't see any good fix that isn't going to lead to a corrupt system or innocent people loosing some internet privledges or having to deal with serious repercussions.

Before I forgot, I also need to address one last topic I left earlier: the two solutions I've heard to this issue. Policing, while seeming like the best fix, isn't realistic unless you can force the harassers off the internet, which average joes like you or me can't do. You can encourage people not to fling shit, but no matter how hard you try some people will still do so. There needs to be a better solution. And just telling people to stop isn't the solution; often times these cries are from websites where 99% of the people don't harass others anyway, so the message is just preaching to the choir.

Anyway, this whole post has been twice as long as I thought it was going to be. What do you guys think? Any ideas for a solution that wouldn't hit people like me who are assholes in conservative ways, or are people like me part of the problem and should be erased along with people who send death threats?

 

[Zontar]

Short answer: you can't

Long answer: given the nature of the internet and basic human behaviour, it's not possible. You can try to help it calling those who commit it out on their actions, but on the macro level apart from just everyone doing what I just stated there isn't anything that can be done about it.

Unrelated, is mentioning Anita's going "into hiding" really a part of this? She hasn't filed any reports (despite her claims), her actions contradict those of a person going threw what she claims she is, and she was caught having faked the whole thing (either that, or she is capable of time travel. Which is more likely from a known con artist? I know that might seem hypocritical, but her whole career on the internet with her Feminist Frequency program/site/whatever is a textbook example of an ideology based scam).

 

[BlackMageBob]

Swatting has a couple components to fight. Police attitudes toward anonymous tips and threats needs to be dialed back a little. Not completely, but enough that everyone's dog can breathe easy and without the fear that Officer Chocolate Sprinkles is gonna shoot him for barking too loud. The other major component is making the consequences for those making these calls more public. A direct translation of the cost for responding to the call combined with pain and suffering damages to the injured party and jail time, all made public, and probably picked up by the gaming/tech sites.

 

[CaptainCoxwaggle]

You don't. You tell people to grow a pair and accept free speech for what it is.

 

[unambiguouslygabe]

The only way I can think of to reduce online harassment is to to get rid of anonymity. That way people would be deterred from being obnoxious on the internet, the same way that they are deterred from being obnoxious in the real world; that is, being rejected by their community. The problem with this is that even in real life there is bullying and anonymity acts as a shield for the victim as well as the attacker. While I have no doubt that overall harassment would be reduced, the type of harassment that endures would be much more severe.

You've probably heard about the numerous cases of facebook harassment in which someone is bullied by people identifying as themselves in full view of their communities and peers. Being accountable stops most people from behaving like monsters, but not everyone. Those who are victims of this type of harassment are far worse off than those of impersonal online harassment.

No matter how much someone despises and attacks unambiguouslygabe, It's just an artificial mask that I could throw out at any time. But, if I present myself as Gabriel *********** of **********, I can't escape. If I hold an unpopular opinion, my community can't help me by rejecting my attacker; in fact, I will likely be rejected myself.

 

[Fappy]

You don't. You tell people to grow a pair and accept free speech for what it is.

Your freedom of expression ends the moment it violates someone else's freedoms (classic example being hate speech). Death and rape threats are actual crimes and are never acceptable. I thought this was obvious.

 

[CaptainCoxwaggle]

You don't. You tell people to grow a pair and accept free speech for what it is.

Your freedom of expression ends the moment it violates someone else's freedoms (classic example being hate speech). Death and rape threats are actual crimes and are never acceptable. I thought this was obvious.

And, pray, how does speech violate someone else's freedoms? It is a person's right to hate people for whatever reason they want, and to express their hatred vocally. Thoughts should never, ever be crimes.

Freedom of expression doesn't end just because some oversensitive prick gets offended. I would have hoped this would be obvious to any civilised person.

 

[Fappy]

You don't. You tell people to grow a pair and accept free speech for what it is.

Your freedom of expression ends the moment it violates someone else's freedoms (classic example being hate speech). Death and rape threats are actual crimes and are never acceptable. I thought this was obvious.

And, pray, how does speech violate someone else's freedoms? It is a person's right to hate people for whatever reason they want, and to express their hatred vocally. Thoughts should never, ever be crimes.

Freedom of expression doesn't end just because some oversensitive prick gets offended. I would have hoped this would be obvious to any civilised person.

Words have more power than you are giving them credit for. Also, I never said anything about censoring thoughts... this isn't Minority Report. It's not about being offended, it's about spreading ideologies that will inspire violence against certain sectors of the population.

Here's the Wikipedia page for Hate speech, and my argument in a nutshell - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Here's a choice quote that I feel encapsulates the idea nicely: "In 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."

Trust me when I say I value the First Amendment above all other statutes of law in the United States. I studied Journalism for God's sake, so I have an academic obligation to defend and value it. Hate speech and death threats ARE NOT things that have any place in public discourse and SHOULD NOT be defended by the law.

 

[CaptainCoxwaggle]

Words have more power than you are giving them credit for.

Which is precisely why everyone deserves the right to say whatever they wish without limitation or fear of limitation.

it's about spreading ideologies that will inspire violence against certain sectors of the population.

So, censoring ideologies that you do not agree with is right? I'm sure many totalitarian states share the same viewpoints.

The American revolutionaries were spreading ideologies that were inspiring violence.

Trust me when I say I value the First Amendment above all other statutes of law in the United States. I studied Journalism for God's sake, so I have an academic obligation to defend and value it. Hate speech and death threats ARE NOT things that have any place in public discourse and SHOULD NOT be defended by the law.

I find that very hard to believe. People should not be persecuted for stating their beliefs, only their actions. Thoughts and opinions should remain sacrosanct regardless of the perceived damage they may cause. Your obligation to common sense should be beyond academic.

 

[Fappy]

Which is precisely why everyone deserves the right to say whatever they wish without limitation or fear of limitation.

So you think it's okay for someone to get up on a soapbox and declare, "The Jews are responsible for everything! We should kill them all!"

'Cause you know, they have the right to say that stuff... it's not their fault if people listening go out and lynch some Jews that same day. Right?

So, censoring ideologies that you do not agree with is right? I'm sure many totalitarian states share the same viewpoints.

I like how you left out the operative word "violence" in your reply. Because you know, it's kind of the entire point of what I was saying.

The American revolutionaries were spreading ideologies that were inspiring violence.

Now you just sound like Glenn Beck.

I find that very hard to believe. People should not be persecuted for stating their beliefs, only their actions. Thoughts and opinions should remain sacrosanct regardless of the perceived damage they may cause. Your obligation to common sense should be beyond academic.

Hate to break it to you, but just about all of the genocides this century have been made possible by people spreading their twisted, violent rhetoric unhindered. It is naive to believe that people should not be responsible for the things they say in a legal capacity if it threatens the safety and welfare of others.

And now I will step away from this exchange as it is clear you're unwilling to listen to reason. I suggest studying up on the history of the first amendment and its role in the civil rights movement in particular. You might learn something.

 

[CaptainCoxwaggle]

So you think it's okay for someone to get up on a soapbox and declare, "The Jews are responsible for everything! We should kill them all!"

'Cause you know, they have the right to say that stuff... it's not their fault if people listening go out and lynch some Jews that same day. Right?

Of course they should be able to. What part about Freedom of speech and opinion do you not understand?

If people do act upon it, then it is then their fault for actively breaking the law. The law has no place telling people what to think, only to punish those who break law. Law is blind for a reason.

Hate to break it to you, but just about all of the genocides this century have been made possible by people spreading their twisted, violent rhetoric unhindered. It is naive to believe that people should not be responsible for the things they say in a legal capacity if it threatens the safety and welfare of others.

And now I will step away from this exchange as it is clear you're unwilling to listen to reason. I suggest studying up on the history of the first amendment and its role in the civil rights movement in particular. You might learn something.

I hate to break it to you, but every state that has precipitated a genocide has restricted the freedom of speech.

What was the Nazi justification for killing the Jews? The Jews were inciting violence against good Germans.
What was the Turkish justification for killing the Armenians? The Armenians were inciting violence against the Turkish.
What was the communist justification for killing non-communists? They are violent counter-revolutionaries who are inciting violence against the state.

I suggest you learn that it is people such as yourselves who are responsible for the silence and repression of the millions of people who opposed their killings, but were unable to speak out against the state.

 

[firebobm173]

The only way I can think of to reduce online harassment is to to get rid of anonymity. That way people would be deterred from being obnoxious on the internet, they same way that they are deterred from being obnoxious in the real world; that is, being rejected by their community. The problem with this is that even in real life there is bullying and anonymity acts as a shield for the victim as well as the attacker. While I have no doubt that overall harassment would be reduced, the type of harassment that endures would be much more severe.

You've probably heard about the numerous cases of facebook harassment in which someone is bullied by people identifying as themselves in full view of their communities and peers. Being accountable stops most people from behaving like monsters, but not everyone. Those who are victims of this type of harassment are far worse off than those of impersonal online harassment.

No matter how much someone despises and attacks unambiguouslygabe, It's just an artificial mask that I could throw out at any time. But, if I present myself as Gabriel *********** of **********, I can't escape. If I hold an unpopular opinion, my community can't help me by rejecting my attacker; in fact, I will likely be rejected myself.

I agree completely. I personally think that while it will take a long time, the days of internet anonymity are numbered. While I know that the anonymity of the internet allows people to express themselves in ways that aren't mainstream, I think the fact that the entire internet seems to be incapable of tolerating people with differing opinions almost completely undermines this ostensible culture of tolerance.Sites like Facebook Google, and Amazon are centralizing the internet and sites like it will become more and more common until they become the starbucks and walmart of websites, providing an easy and convient service to the majority of people while almost completely driving out smaller competitors. As for other solutions I believe this article [http://www.cracked.com/article_16765_5-ways-to-stop-trolls-from-killing-internet.html] accurately sums up the situation with anonymity and harassment on the internet.

 

[Jux]

Ending anonymity and police following through with investigating threats are pretty much the only things. Now, whether thats possible to achieve is another matter entirely.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

Well, unless every single website became heavily monitored via moderators like this site, I doubt such a thing will ever be possible. It's a shame, but it's something you just got to live with if you're a heavy internet user. Like those recent celebrity hackings. Yeah, it sucks that your private stuff got hacked, and in an ideal world you should not expect anyone else to dig around in there, but putting that kind of stuff, even "secured" on the internet is not a wise idea no matter which way you slice it. Similar situation here. Yes, you have the right not to expect abuse for voicing your opinions, but that will happen nonetheless and you just gotta put up with it.

It's not ideal, but our world has never been ideal, unfortunately.

 

[xaszatm]

Don't you love it when someone attempts to use the First Amendment in an attempt to justify his hate. Also when said person has the gall the accuse others of genocide. Oh, and by love, I mean DESPISE.

So you think it's okay for someone to get up on a soapbox and declare, "The Jews are responsible for everything! We should kill them all!"

'Cause you know, they have the right to say that stuff... it's not their fault if people listening go out and lynch some Jews that same day. Right?

Of course they should be able to. What part about Freedom of speech and opinion do you not understand?

If people do act upon it, then it is then their fault for actively breaking the law. The law has no place telling people what to think, only to punish those who break law. Law is blind for a reason.

Hate to break it to you, but just about all of the genocides this century have been made possible by people spreading their twisted, violent rhetoric unhindered. It is naive to believe that people should not be responsible for the things they say in a legal capacity if it threatens the safety and welfare of others.

And now I will step away from this exchange as it is clear you're unwilling to listen to reason. I suggest studying up on the history of the first amendment and its role in the civil rights movement in particular. You might learn something.

I hate to break it to you, but every state that has precipitated a genocide has restricted the freedom of speech.

What was the Nazi justification for killing the Jews? The Jews were inciting violence against good Germans.
What was the Turkish justification for killing the Armenians? The Armenians were inciting violence against the Turkish.
What was the communist justification for killing non-communists? They are violent counter-revolutionaries who are inciting violence against the state.

I suggest you learn that it is people such as yourselves who are responsible for the silence and repression of the millions of people who opposed their killings, but were unable to speak out against the state.

What part of Freedom of Speech and Opinion do YOU not understand. You, like so many others who use the First Amendment as a vessel for their hatred, seem to forget that freedom of speech is not freedom FROM speech. You do not get to say whatever you want without consequences. That isn't free speech. That's a loony bin.

In the United States of America, people have the right to say whatever they want. However, whatever you say is your burden. You do NOT get to say hate speech then turn around and complain when people say they do not want to hear it. Your freedom of speech does not trump theirs. You want to say you hate people? You have the right to do it. Everyone else has the right to say SHUT UP! You do not have the right to deny other's freedom of speech because they say they want you to be quiet. Freedom of speech works both ways, not just in your favor.

Furthermore, to counter your belief that words can't cause harm. Consider this, I call you a slag of poor words whenever you're out in public. I call you over the phone. I yell it out towards you. I never touch you, invade your home or personal space, or even get within your personal bubble, but I am always there, finding the words that sting the most and laughing at you all the time. Finally, you snap and give me a punch. I now accuse you of assault and battery. I never touched you after all. Why should I get punched? Would any judge actually go with such a silly defense? Words can hurt and manipulate. To say that words can't cause harm or can't hurt freedoms is the expression of the naive or the ignorant. And that's just a basic example. Let's not go into the examples of bullying leading to suicide, or the words leading to actions (if you really think that the words leading to an action don't count, consider the soldiers of Vietnam).

Finally, none of this matters because, guess what? THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH ONLY APPLIES TO THE GOVERNMENT! Have you read the First Amendment. It says "Congress", not businesses, local forums, bars, or other people. CONGRESS. Everyone else most definitely have a right to limit speech. You don't like it? Go somewhere else.

Also, what kind of pathetic person accuses someone of genocide? Grow up. Act like a man instead of pretending to be one.

 

[CaptainCoxwaggle]

What part of Freedom of Speech and Opinion do YOU not understand. You, like so many others who use the First Amendment as a vessel for their hatred, seem to forget that freedom of speech is not freedom FROM speech. You do not get to say whatever you want without consequences. That isn't free speech. That's a loony bin.

That is precisely what I was insinuated. Those who abuse their freedom of speech will find themselves ridiculed.

In the United States of America, people have the right to say whatever they want. However, whatever you say is your burden. You do NOT get to say hate speech then turn around and complain when people say they do not want to hear it

Precisely, that was what I was saying. In an intelligent, civilised society with open speech, those who espouse absurd views will be exposed as ignorant. Thanks for proving that point.

Your freedom of speech does not trump theirs. You want to say you hate people? You have the right to do it. Everyone else has the right to say SHUT UP! You do not have the right to deny other's freedom of speech because they say they want you to be quiet. Freedom of speech works both ways, not just in your favor.

Fucking Yes! Thank you, at least someone here understands how very simple this whole issue is. Let everyone say whatever they want, do not let the state censor or limit any of it, let the individual citizen decide what is sensible or not.

Freedom of speech works both bloody ways, not just in the favour of nutjobs who want hate speech censored.

Furthermore, to counter your belief that words can't cause harm. Consider this, I call you a slag of poor words whenever you're out in public. I call you over the phone. I yell it out towards you. I never touch you, invade your home or personal space, or even get within your personal bubble, but I am always there, finding the words that sting the most and laughing at you all the time. Finally, you snap and give me a punch. I now accuse you of assault and battery. I never touched you after all. Why should I get punched? Would any judge actually go with such a silly defense? Words can hurt and manipulate. To say that words can't cause harm or can't hurt freedoms is the expression of the naive or the ignorant. And that's just a basic example. Let's not go into the examples of bullying leading to suicide, or the words leading to actions (if you really think that the words leading to an action don't count, consider the soldiers of Vietnam).

You are allowed to do so, and would be fully justified in calling out assault. And any sensible judge would do so.

You see critique applies to everyone, and a civilised person should learn to accept criticism and be open and tolerant of any opinion.

Finally, none of this matters because, guess what? THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH ONLY APPLIES TO THE GOVERNMENT! Have you read the First Amendment. It says "Congress", not businesses, local forums, bars, or other people. CONGRESS. Everyone else most definitely have a right to limit speech. You don't like it? Go somewhere else.

Well, I'm not actually American, but I do find it a bit funny that you suggest the exile of those who do not adhere to your own views.

Also you might want to work on your reading

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance

Also, what kind of pathetic person accuses someone of genocide? Grow up. Act like a man instead of pretending to be one.

I'm not the one who initially suggested lynching Jews. Are you always so selective in your reading?

 

[Guerilla]

By killing anonymity and freedom of speech which is absolutely categorically UNACCEPTABLE. So the only thing you can do is be smart. I've been on the internet since ~1998 and I've never been doxxed even though there were plenty of people hating me at times. Don't use the same usernames all the time, don't ever give your name or address, keep the gps closed when taking pics and be cautious about what you're saying or uploading to the internet.

 

[xaszatm]

Snip

Note: If you want to have someone notice that you have said something, please do not delete the stuff that comes after the "=" sign in the quote brackets. It makes it look like you are avoiding me in order to get a word in.

1. Is it your habit of taking whatever someone else says and twisting it so it looks like hate speech? Because, congratulations, I have not seen a more masterful stroke than what you just did. No, you dimwit, I did not mean to suggest that you be exiled. For someone who desires to say hatred and bile, you seem shockingly sensitive to criticism.

People have an option when confronted with speech they don't like. They can choose to ignore it, ask the person to stop, or leave the place if possible. You seem to think that the second and third options are restricting your freedom of speech as if one only has a choice to ignore whatever someone else says or risk "harming" that person's freedom. That, unfortunately, makes things so the person receiving said bile have restricted speech. And we are all about that, aren't we?

2. Wait, any judge would say that the person who punched the other is wrong? That it wasn't justifiable? Because if that's what you're saying then I suggest getting a law book as well as a book explaining the constitution because...

3. You know, I was contemplating putting the First Amendment in my post. Why don't you read it. Congress. Congress shall make no law. Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech. Congress, not the world, Congress. Please understand.

[img=http://www.gengame.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/satoru-iwata-not-resigning.jpg]http://www.gengame.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/satoru-iwata-not-resigning.jpg[/img]


All that being said, it is clear that not only do you have no idea what freedom of speech is, but you have no desire to learn beyond what narrow definition you have chosen for yourself. So, unless you make a particularly good rebuttal (doubt it, judging from your history) or apologize for your lousy actions, we have nothing more to discuss. Good. Day.

 

[Inglorious891]

The only way I can think of to reduce online harassment is to to get rid of anonymity. That way people would be deterred from being obnoxious on the internet, they same way that they are deterred from being obnoxious in the real world; that is, being rejected by their community. The problem with this is that even in real life there is bullying and anonymity acts as a shield for the victim as well as the attacker. While I have no doubt that overall harassment would be reduced, the type of harassment that endures would be much more severe.

You've probably heard about the numerous cases of facebook harassment in which someone is bullied by people identifying as themselves in full view of their communities and peers. Being accountable stops most people from behaving like monsters, but not everyone. Those who are victims of this type of harassment are far worse off than those of impersonal online harassment.

No matter how much someone despises and attacks unambiguouslygabe, It's just an artificial mask that I could throw out at any time. But, if I present myself as Gabriel *********** of **********, I can't escape. If I hold an unpopular opinion, my community can't help me by rejecting my attacker; in fact, I will likely be rejected myself.

I agree completely. I personally think that while it will take a long time, the days of internet anonymity are numbered. While I know that the anonymity of the internet allows people to express themselves in ways that aren't mainstream, I think the fact that the entire internet seems to be incapable of tolerating people with differing opinions almost completely undermines this ostensible culture of tolerance.Sites like Facebook Google, and Amazon are centralizing the internet and sites like it will become more and more common until they become the starbucks and walmart of websites, providing an easy and convient service to the majority of people while almost completely driving out smaller competitors. As for other solutions I believe this article [http://www.cracked.com/article_16765_5-ways-to-stop-trolls-from-killing-internet.html] accurately sums up the situation with anonymity and harassment on the internet.

I agree that one big solution is to remove the ability to be anonmyous, completely removing it worries me. People on the internet seem very defensive about their rights related to the internet, and seem to have a very hostile reaction to, for example, the government trying to make it easier to use the internet to gather information on people and monitor them. I realize in the case of removing harassment the cause is noble, but unless there's a way to remove anonymity from the internet and keep people's online activites private I don't see it as a solution many would embrace. Not only that, but I hate the idea that people should turn to the government to help fix issues that isn't the government's problem. People breaking the law by SWATing or saying phyiscal threats? That's the government's issue. People screaming racial/sexual insults blindly? Not against the law, not inheritently harmful, not the government's fault.
I'm also kinda worried because that article seems to imply that my kind of assholery that I described in the OP should also be phased out, and I don't want that. I'm probably being overly-defensive, but either way I'm worried.