How do we realistically stop harassment online?

[Robert B. Marks]

Sticky: "Really, making that assumption that the people in there speak for 4chan is the same kind of assumption the person your arguing with is making. Not trying to bust down your argument, but it's a pretty poor assumption to assume those two places are one in the same when the mediums have nothing to do with one another."

That is a point. I should have said:

Now, here is undercover work by Zoe Quinn with members in a chat channel discussing how to engineer #gamergate: https://storify.com/strictmachine/gameovergate

Here is a chat log with further members directly discussing tactics against Quinn: http://archive.today/Ler4O

You are correct - accuracy is important.

 

[Sticky]

Sticky: "Really, making that assumption that the people in there speak for 4chan is the same kind of assumption the person your arguing with is making. Not trying to bust down your argument, but it's a pretty poor assumption to assume those two places are one in the same when the mediums have nothing to do with one another."

That is a point. I should have said:

Now, here is undercover work by Zoe Quinn with members in a chat channel discussing how to engineer #gamergate: https://storify.com/strictmachine/gameovergate

Zoe Quinn isn't an unbiased source of information in this argument. Zoe Quinn is fighting in this argument all the same with the chat channel, and therefore has her own agenda and personal interest. Which is why you shouldn't take her words at face value OR the words from the chat channel at face value, either. Even if we assume the chat channel is somehow a conspiracy ring that is keeping #gamergate alive (which we can see is probably not true, there are WAY more people involved than just a few guys in an IRC channel) that doesn't even prove if the people in the #gamergate channel are the ones posting on internet forums and twitter and not just people who went into a channel to talk about it.

And again, you posted an archive which took quotes out of context from an IRC chat log. Being a history major, I'm sure you understand the value of context. After all, context is EVERYTHING in words.

So instead of coming to conclusions based on what other people said about it, why not read the full, unabridged, uncut chat log and come to your own conclusions of it like I did?

http://attackongaming.com/The-infamous-IRC-Channel.log

That is all of it, every word posted for the whole time that Zoe Quinn was infiltrating that chat channel and then some. It's a gigantic read that will take several hours or days to get through, but that's the only way to understand the context of the IRC channel and the information posted on it. I'm sure you have a lot of professional experience reading through extremely long, boring texts that's are only relevant in hindsight, so it's a good place to start in understanding this whole mess.

My conclusion after reading it is that it's the same as any other IRC channel in existence, a place to generate noise for people who have shared interest. Trying to say that an IRC channel is part of a big conspiracy is a silly conclusion to come to. IRC channels are just public chat rooms that anyone can join, especially that chat room because it did not have invite-only enabled. Which means that anyone can just waltz into the room and start talking or listening at any time they wanted. Hardly the mark of a giant conspiracy ring when your shadowy meeting room has an open door policy. Which is why I'm taking anything said there with a grain of salt.

Even assuming that the majority of arguments for #gamergate originate in that chat room (I don't believe it, but I'll assume that for a minute) then they're still perfectly valid argumentative points that people need to address. Zoe Quinn doesn't get labeled as running a conspiracy even though she seems to be the one doing most of the legwork to take down #gamergate because that, too, would be silly. It would be labeling a person and their interest in a topic in a malicious way to discredit their argument.

Which is what you, and most of the internet, has done to a bunch of people whose only crime has been forming an IRC channel so they can talk about it together. I'm not an advocate of two wrongs making a right, so I like to think that an IRC channel existing is barely any evidence of a 'grand conspiracy'. At least not any more than Zoe Quinn trying to 'infiltrate' the publicly viewable chat room with intent on slandering her opposition and trying to out a 'conspiracy' that can only be seen when you chop off the context to a bunch of IRC logs.

 

[carnex]

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.

Actually there were number of trials and I'm not really sure but if I remember correctly unless you are calling for physical violence or other transgression of law you are perfectly withing legal limits of freedom of speech. So talking about soperiority or inferiority of genders, races etc is perfectly legal. Law has very little to do with morality.

 

[Lejsen]

People being shit on the internet most likely weren't raised very well by their parents. It's the parents' fault, what can the internet do about that?

 

[Robert B. Marks]

Sticky: You're right - I'm a trained historian. Why, then, do you assume I didn't open the full log and start reading?

Yeah, I DID open it up and start reading. It's what I'm trained to do with primary sources.

I think I only needed to page down 4-6 times on my screen before I came across people talking about the success of the campaign and gathering information to launch another attack in it. The context was pretty clear.

 

[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.

Actually there were number of trials and I'm not really sure but if I remember correctly unless you are calling for physical violence or other transgression of law you are perfectly withing legal limits of freedom of speech. So talking about soperiority or inferiority of genders, races etc is perfectly legal. Law has very little to do with morality.

I never meant to imply that preaching narrow-minded rhetoric is or even should be illegal. There is a reason KKK rallies are allowed to organize in Atlanta in 2014 and why the Westboro Baptist church is allow to spread their hate at every funeral they attend. It's when their doctrine actually promotes violence (and other crimes) against others within society that it actually becomes a legal issue. It's a fine line to tread, but it's definitely one that should exist.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Honestly, I don't get how people can see people accusing Anita of fabricating the death threats in favor of Gamergate then somehow insinuate that means they're somehow pro-harassment.

Dismissing harassment as unimportant, blaming the victim, or worse, accusing them of lying, is supporting the harassment.

What makes Anita different however is that she plays the victim card as much and as often as she possibly can. Don't get me wrong, I'm not "victim blaming" her or anything but it comes across to a lot of people as just plain unethical to bring that much attention to such a thing when at the same time trying to raise money, especially if the harassment isn't somehow impeding the amount of money you can raise.

What, it's unethical for someone being harassed to tell people that they are being harassed? The right thing to do is to pretend it's not happening?

 

[Ryan Minns]

"Hey, that person spoke *IGNORE LIST* Aww, they're probably still talking to the wall"

Seriously, having easy to access ignore lists saves so much time and when I told a friend about it she used it as an example in one of her speeches

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

=I was going to respond, but I think we'd be talking in circles, since I don't think you care about what I'm trying to say, and I just think you're wrong across the board.

I'd stop responding if I were you, too.

I did want to respond to this though.

Trying to compare me to a religious bigot is kind of gross and extremely insulting, to start.

Good thing I only compared your logic to that of a religious bigot. I specifically said you were utilizing a form of argument identical to that deployed by a religious bigot. If you can't grasp the important difference between the statement I in fact made and the statement you accused me of making, it's probably for the best that you're no longer responding.

The reason this analogy doesn't work is - the vast majority of Muslims reject extremists, not just in word, but in action. Many - if not most or all - of those fighting the current wave of terror in Iraq, for instance, are themselves Muslims. That community has collectively rejected its extremists, in spite of the amount of hate they get from people and the fact that they often get lumped together.

And despite the vast majority of Muslims rejecting extremists, Muslim extremists still exist. Still terrorize. Still murder. And what's the one thing you never do with terrorists? Give them what they want. An online troll is a type of terrorist seeking attention and hurt feelings. When you give them these things, you're literally letting a terrorist win.

I feel like you're making my arguments for me at this point.

Often - faaaaaaaaaar too often - the kind of people who purport to have a legitimate argument in online discussions only pay lip-service to silencing those who would subvert their position in order to spew vitriol. They point to arguments like yours as an excuse to shrug their shoulders and do nothing, while letting harassment exist as a tool to wear down and drive their opponents out of the discussion. They couch inflammatory statements behind 'I'm against harassment, but' and reap the benefits of raging masses that spew hate while trying to present themselves as having clean hands.

If you want to conflate enablers and supporters of harassment with the masses (instead of the with the harassers, which makes infinitely more sense), then sure, what you're saying here makes sense. I think that's incredibly dishonest.

And those people, who try to utilize online harassment as a tool to further their agenda while pretending they are against it - those people are the ones you should be calling cowards.

If someone presenting an opinion in a public and unregulated space is harassed and ridiculed by people who are not under my control, and that opinion giver decides to use said harassment/ridicule as a means to dismiss any criticism of their assertions (instead of opting for a legitimately useful course, such as blocking/ignoring trolls and reporting psychos to the police), then I am a coward for not rising to the defense of my ideological opponent in a fashion that will only exacerbate the harm befalling them. Air-tight.

I've got what I believe to be a stronger theory. People who know perfectly well how to shut down trolls and harassment make a conscious decision not to do so because it's far easier to paint your ideological opponents with the worst possible brush and dismiss their assertions out of hand than it is to honestly debate people who could, in fact, defeat you fair and square. Better to take the easy way out than risk the destruction of ideas so firmly entrenched in your psyche (by years in the echo chamber) that they've become load-bearing pillars of your fragile identity.

 

[nightmare_gorilla]

The simple truth is you can't stop people from being assholes, regardless of how you feel about this simple fact is irrelevant. assholes will always be assholes and there will always be assholes on this planet so long as humans live here. that's not me being a downer or depressed it's just being realistic. so when it all boils down and you know you can't silence these voices you have a choice to make either:

Ignore them: We now have more than enough empirical evidence to say that if you just refuse to engage the threat makers they will tire out and go away, I mean the hateful comments section is a stereotype in all industries not just ours, and tons of MALE youtubers get death threats as well but they ignore them and it goes away. Anita's tactic of publicizing every last hurtful comment she gets offers these people exactly what they want, attention. she's proven that if you have an axe to grind and you swing it in her direction she will display your axe on a wall for all to see and the other axe wielders can admire how shiny it is. that's not to say they shouldn't be taken seriously or that she should just "get over it" or anything of the sort, file the police reports, call a friend and get all the support you need. but the harassment won't end as long you allow it to define the conversation and drown out the legitimate discussions.

Separate them: Don't associate with people who do that kind of thing. whenever I face the issue of stopping harassment I always have the same response, i'm not an asshole, my friends aren't assholes, I don't associate with assholes so who am I supposed to tell this wondrous news of zero harassment tolerance? i'm reminded of a story penn jillete told on his podcast and in his book. During an atheist speaking engagement a Christian stood up and asked "If there's no god what's to stop people from killing and raping everyone they want." The girl seated next to him immediately got up and moved several chairs away from him. Society will shun you for that type of behavior even without a god to punish you for it. that's really the most powerful weapon we have, when someone is an asshole just don't hang out with them anymore. it also lead to one of my favorite quotes "I have already raped and killed everyone I want to. because the number of people on that list is 0."

OR

You can go the Anita route and let the harassers define the conversation, chase you from your home and prove to everyone that they can get a little attention by throwing some hate your way. now weather she's doing this knowingly or not we all kind of agree she's going about it the wrong way yeah. I won't comment on if it's just frustration and ignorance or if she is exploiting it for publicity because frankly I don't like speculating on the content of another persons heart.

at least that's how I see it.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The simple truth is you can't stop people from being assholes, regardless of how you feel about this simple fact is irrelevant. assholes will always be assholes and there will always be assholes on this planet so long as humans live here. that's not me being a downer or depressed it's just being realistic.

To an extent, yes. There will always be some. However, the number isn't constant. Hell, loads of people look back at the things they've done and cringe. There's going to be a lot of people that think what they are doing is justified, or funny, or of no concern, and these are people that might be reasoned with...to an extent.

Then there are others who are a lost cause, yeah.

Ignore them: We now have more than enough empirical evidence to say that if you just refuse to engage the threat makers they will tire out and go away, I mean the hateful comments section is a stereotype in all industries not just ours, and tons of MALE youtubers get death threats as well but they ignore them and it goes away. Anita's tactic of publicizing every last hurtful comment she gets offers these people exactly what they want, attention. she's proven that if you have an axe to grind and you swing it in her direction she will display your axe on a wall for all to see and the other axe wielders can admire how shiny it is. that's not to say they shouldn't be taken seriously or that she should just "get over it" or anything of the sort, file the police reports, call a friend and get all the support you need. but the harassment won't end as long you allow it to define the conversation and drown out the legitimate discussions.

Well...there is truth to this, sure, but OTOH, part of the problem is that a lot of people aren't acknowledging that there is a problem.

Also...it takes more or less no effort to say "im gonna rape u to death". You don't need to be that engaged for that.

Separate them: Don't associate with people who do that kind of thing. whenever I face the issue of stopping harassment I always have the same response, i'm not an asshole, my friends aren't assholes, I don't associate with assholes so who am I supposed to tell this wondrous news of zero harassment tolerance?

Taking this as more of a serious question than I think you meant, the answer is the arseholes. Its very important to shun these sorts of people, but it's also important to be clear on what you are doing.

In the example you give, she's not just saying "I'm not with him", she's also saying to him, "I'm not with you" (or alternatively "You're not with me").

It's very easy to say "I'm not one of the bad ones", but it's not very useful. "You don't speak for me", is very different.

(Now, I know that this wasn't what you meant, but this is a point that I feel needs to be raised)

You can go the Anita route and let the harassers define the conversation, chase you from your home and prove to everyone that they can get a little attention by throwing some hate your way. now weather she's doing this knowingly or not we all kind of agree she's going about it the wrong way yeah.

I don't...and...I really don't think it's fair to say that she is letting them chase her from her home.

 

[sageoftruth]

In this generation? I doubt it. The only thing I have hope for is that we can make it less common down the road. One thing I believe is that we won't change it with laws. Laws are too blunt. More subtlety is needed. Laws against hate crimes aren't the reason today's kids and adults scoff at ideas of race from the 1920s. Instead, it's things that actually affect their perspective. Schools, TV, websites, blogs, etc. Because the internet is still a pretty new concept, I don't think the damages of online harassment has become a standard subject in things that influence children. If it has, then perhaps it happened too recently for us to see results just yet. I remain hopeful.

 

[kasperbbs]

People who really want to harm someone wouldn't announce it publicly, unless they are stupid or some kind of comic book villain wannabe's. As for policing the internet.. End anonimity and bury the cops with complaints about people being dipshits on the internet?

 

[Thaluikhain]

In this generation? I doubt it. The only thing I have hope for is that we can make it less common down the road. One thing I believe is that we won't change it with laws. Laws are too blunt. More subtlety is needed. Laws against hate crimes aren't the reason today's kids and adults scoff at ideas of race from the 1920s. Instead, it's things that actually affect their perspective. Schools, TV, websites, blogs, etc.

Most definitely yes. Well, laws are useful, but they don't work well by themselves...the people enforcing, interpreting and writing those laws come from the same society that has the problem.

Of course, in context, it's the people trying to draw attention to those issues getting the harassment.

Because the internet is still a pretty new concept, I don't think the damages of online harassment has become a standard subject in things that influence children. If it has, then perhaps it happened too recently for us to see results just yet. I remain hopeful.

Hey? Hasn't this been around for a while, and there's big concerns about kids and online harassment? Though, under the umbrella of bullying in general.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Aside from that, we need strict penalties for death threats...I actually am not a real fan of that idea, because it's a little too High School "Zero Tolerance" policy, but I can't think of another way. Make a threat, go to jail.

In most if not all of America, a death threat is a crime. It's considered a form of assault.

But I'm saying, you make a death threat? Minimum 1 month jail sentence, increasing with each time a death threat is made.

 

[sageoftruth]

In this generation? I doubt it. The only thing I have hope for is that we can make it less common down the road. One thing I believe is that we won't change it with laws. Laws are too blunt. More subtlety is needed. Laws against hate crimes aren't the reason today's kids and adults scoff at ideas of race from the 1920s. Instead, it's things that actually affect their perspective. Schools, TV, websites, blogs, etc.

Most definitely yes. Well, laws are useful, but they don't work well by themselves...the people enforcing, interpreting and writing those laws come from the same society that has the problem.

Of course, in context, it's the people trying to draw attention to those issues getting the harassment.

Because the internet is still a pretty new concept, I don't think the damages of online harassment has become a standard subject in things that influence children. If it has, then perhaps it happened too recently for us to see results just yet. I remain hopeful.

Hey? Hasn't this been around for a while, and there's big concerns about kids and online harassment? Though, under the umbrella of bullying in general.

It has been around for quite awhile, but I grew up in a world without internet, and I still haven't keeled over yet. We still have people in court and running school boards who still think it's "Just a series of tubes". I'm speaking in terms of generations. Once internet natives are the ones writing laws, I'll stop calling it new.

Anyway, good to know that there are already concerns about online harassment in schools. I guess it just needs time to spread through other forms of media, the way drug PSAs did when I was in school. If that's already happened as well, I've got nothing.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It has been around for quite awhile, but I grew up in a world without internet, and I still haven't keeled over yet. We still have people in court and running school boards who still think it's "Just a series of tubes". I'm speaking in terms of generations. Once internet natives are the ones writing laws, I'll stop calling it new.

Ah, I see what you mean.

Anyway, good to know that there are already concerns about online harassment in schools. I guess it just needs time to spread through other forms of media, the way drug PSAs did when I was in school. If that's already happened as well, I've got nothing.

Concerns, yes, but I don't know if anything useful is being done. There are lots of problems with schools failing to address bullying IRL, where it is most noticeable, doing so in a more nebulous environment is going to be a lot trickier.