How do we realistically stop harassment online?

[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.

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.

Whops, sorry for misunderstanding then.

Anyway, I really don't know how to stop harassment without forcing people to use their own identity or seriously violating everyone's rights. And even if the first bit was implemented I would imagine it wouldn't be that hard to fake one's identity which would then lead to entirely new way of harassment.

Only way is to stay away out of freely available places and, if you are celebrity, have someone to filter your input. Things like boards and social networks with referral systems and validation chambers work quite good for example.

 

[bossfight1]

Forgive me if my take on this seems a bit lacking in real structure or ultimate point, it might be more of a rant on my part.

It's an attitude that internet stalkers/harassers are like weeds and will keep coming no matter how many times we pluck them. I feel, however, that they CAN be stopped, provided we keep working to show the world that this kind of shit will not be tolerated. Internet harassment won't go away over night, but it will NEVER go away if we don't actually DO something about it.

I feel that the best way to deal with it is to actually enforce strict punishments for it. Death/rape threats should be punishable by law, constantly making an ass of yourself on Twitter should earn you punishments that escalate with repeat offenses that could ultimately lead to your internet being shut down, basically PUNISH assholes for being assholes. Why is it that someone can go to jail if they make a threat over the phone, but not over the internet? The answer, I'm guessing, is that a phone call is easier to trace than the source of a tweet. In that case, why don't we work to improve internet tracing techniques?

I've never had a real problem with the NSA cranking up their surveillance, so long as it's in the name of a legit threat/problem. Don't get me wrong, when they spy on the phone calls, emails, ALL correspondence of EVERYONE in the country to search for terrorism, that's not okay by me; like burning down a forest to deal with one termite-infested tree. But if they have the ABILITY to quickly, easily trace the disguised phone call of someone who made a death/rape threat and quickly find the scumbag, I'd be much in favor of that. I don't want cameras in every room, I don't want them to have a constant feed through my webcam... I want them to be better FINDERS than WATCHERS.

Really, all it'll take is just some effort, and the knowledge that it will take some time before the internet is improved. The internet's evolved into something no one could have expected and, as such, we should work to preserve its best aspects while removing its worst.

 

[Sticky]

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.

Because you posted a list of excerpts and not the full log. I don't think people taking out 'excerpts' from the log is very fair to the people in the channel.

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.

So we've gone from from 'conspiracy' to 'people talking about the campaign in a chat room'. Yes, I would expect people in a chat room to talk about the subject material of the chat room occasionally.
Again, none of this is evidence of any kind of 'conspiracy'. They gathered in a chat room to discuss gamergate and the best evidence Zoe Quinn has that it's a gigantic conspiracy is that they discuss gamergate?

This is why I've taken her words, or most people's words who have 'reported' on this, with a grain of salt. They all have their own agenda to push and they spin words and meanings around to fit. All Zoe Quinn has right now that #gamergate is orchestrated by a shadowy underground mastermind is her own word. Why should anyone trust her words over the words of some of the people who were in that very chat room?

Especially Zoe Quinn, she's been constantly spouting unprovable statements through this whole thing and has already been proven to use underhanded tactics against her opponents. Even assuming #gamergate is the work of a dishonest minority, the double-standards of wanting to support one dishonest minority over another has been baffling to me.

EDIT: Also I'm going to take the hint and suggest we both stop talking about gamergate or Zoe Quinn, this isn't the right thread to talk about it. Maybe we should consider moving to the proper thread?

 

[Sticky]

Forgive me if my take on this seems a bit lacking in real structure or ultimate point, it might be more of a rant on my part.

It's an attitude that internet stalkers/harassers are like weeds and will keep coming no matter how many times we pluck them. I feel, however, that they CAN be stopped, provided we keep working to show the world that this kind of shit will not be tolerated. Internet harassment won't go away over night, but it will NEVER go away if we don't actually DO something about it.

I feel that the best way to deal with it is to actually enforce strict punishments for it. Death/rape threats should be punishable by law, constantly making an ass of yourself on Twitter should earn you punishments that escalate with repeat offenses that could ultimately lead to your internet being shut down, basically PUNISH assholes for being assholes. Why is it that someone can go to jail if they make a threat over the phone, but not over the internet? The answer, I'm guessing, is that a phone call is easier to trace than the source of a tweet. In that case, why don't we work to improve internet tracing techniques?

I've never had a real problem with the NSA cranking up their surveillance, so long as it's in the name of a legit threat/problem. Don't get me wrong, when they spy on the phone calls, emails, ALL correspondence of EVERYONE in the country to search for terrorism, that's not okay by me; like burning down a forest to deal with one termite-infested tree. But if they have the ABILITY to quickly, easily trace the disguised phone call of someone who made a death/rape threat and quickly find the scumbag, I'd be much in favor of that. I don't want cameras in every room, I don't want them to have a constant feed through my webcam... I want them to be better FINDERS than WATCHERS.

Really, all it'll take is just some effort, and the knowledge that it will take some time before the internet is improved. The internet's evolved into something no one could have expected and, as such, we should work to preserve its best aspects while removing its worst.

I don't agree with any of this, for a number of reasons. Reason #1 being that most of the services you listed are private services owned by companies. Users already violate their terms on those sites by breaking the TOS. Are you suggesting we make breaking a TOS on a website a punishable offense by law? I certainly hope you're not, because that's a can of worms that I hope never gets opened.

I don't see how else you can enforce any of what you suggest, unless you force services like twitter and facebook to be owned by government entities. That's a completely different can that would cause even more havoc and probably destroy those services if it happened.

At least, I'm sure you're aware now of why nothing has been done about it yet: It would require cranking up fascism on the internet to an absurd degree to even think about combating this in the first place. Even then, it wouldn't be possible to keep users from just moving to another service once one service got done threatening their users with jail time based on every aspect of what they say.

EDIT: Oh and:

I've never had a real problem with the NSA cranking up their surveillance, so long as it's in the name of a legit threat/problem.

I don't want to insult or insinuate anything, but I think you should go read several very prolific books that talk about the dangers of over-policing and over-coddling society. George Orwell wrote several books that talked about that. The common theme is how cheering for the government to ramp up control and power is ultimately a bad decision for the populace, even if the government's intentions are entirely good in spirit.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

Sticky: First, I posted two links, the second of which was to the full chat log. Second, I think this is the right thread, seeing as what happened to Quinn was a harassment campaign, and you're the one who brought Sarkeesian and conspiracy theories into the discussion. And, while you keep saying that all we have is Zoe Quinn's word, we also have the chat logs, and a post on 4chan telling everybody that they goofed this time, and to try again next year.

Now, I want to point something out about this particular case of harassment - this is very likely a special case. We now know that it was orchestrated, and that the reason it worked is that certain sections of our community has a talent for doing an impression of a swarm of angry hornets against a perceived threat.

Well, now the word is out. Something this big takes a while to process (it took about three days for it to sink in on my side), but people are realizing that they were played, and the community as a whole was fractured on purpose so that it would silence those the #GamerGaters (for lack of a better word) wanted silenced.

How long do you think it will be before the people behind #GamerGate find themselves on the receiving end of the very anger and rage they tapped into to make it all work, now that we know that they effectively launched an operation against our entire community? What do you think will happen to the people who helped them, and ran interference for them in forums and the like?

Food for thought, don't you think?

 

[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.

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.

right which is exactly my point, no matter how many converts you make or voices you silence there will always be one asshole who wants to crap on your parade, so it makes more sense to know how to deal with assholes when encountering them than having no defense for it and just saying "hey don't be assholes." don't be assholes is already a rule and guess what? there's still assholes.

I understand the symbolism of saying "you don't speak for me" but once again the problem becomes I don't talk to these people they aren't a factor in my life, thus my point being that a large part of the gaming culture don't interact with harassers and don't read the stuff they post once it becomes obvious it is a post by some asshole being an asshole. once again attention is what they want so giving them attention by standing up and pointing them out even if it is to shame them often times is what they wanted in the first place. saying that by not actively decrying harassment everywhere you see it makes you complicit in the harassment is stupid. it's like seeing a guy get shot and asking the dude standing next to him minding his own business why didn't you try to grab the gun.

and Anita has been literally chased from her home as everyone knows because every game site that exists pointed to her staying at a friends home due to a death threat as why gamers are such horrible awful people. so you would agree with how she's handling the harassment? then tell me, what are people talking about? is it her message? is there some particular thing from her videos that's being discussed or pointed to as thought provoking? or is everyone just talking about how "this woman DARED to share her opinion and thus has been verbally raped and abused and shame on all of you but not me because I'm saying how awful you are which puts me on the good side." so yeah it's fair to say she's let them drive her from her home. she's disabled comments and ratings on all her videos yeah? that's basically saying "you guys win." Anita aint special, the harassment she faces isn't new or unique to her, it aint right and it's not ok, but for some reason there's other women on youtube saying their piece and ignoring the haters and doing just fine. again, not condoning it, but how she's chosen to handle it has made it exponentially worse for herself.

 

[minkus_draconus]

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.

This is a more general response then specific to the L4D example.

If you make it clear to people who join your servers in some manner that you expect them to be your playthings for abuse and they are OK with it than that's fine. Maybe they like the challenge of competing against your goal.

If you are doing this to disrupt public servers where the expectation of play is not that kind of assholery than you should be banned from the server.

If you are hiding this to spring on the unsuspecting who joined your server expecting to play the game in the commonly expected manner (co-op game means everyone is working toward the goal, PVP means people on the team (or singularly) should be working to advance the goal) ... I'm not sure how to respond to this behavior in a civil manner. I've closed this paragraph 4-5 times now and I can't find the words that communicate how I feel that would allow civil conversation to continue. The best I can do is that I do not feel that kind of behavior is appropriate in humans. I do not enjoy the company of people who get their kicks from causing strife in others life, even if "It's just a game".

It's one thing to trash talk and screw with friends because you have a close social bond and as a group you understand that it's not malicious. So with a group of friends playing on a server who all expect this no problem.

I'm starting to think all games with online interaction need that system where toxic players get grouped with each other over time rather than be inflicted on the public at large. Maybe discussion boards and social sites need to work on something like that as well.

EDIT: fixed quote attribution.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

Well, I made this point before, and possibly not as well as I should have. For long term change, it really does come down to peer pressure.

Here's the thing - consider for a moment why people don't act in the real world like they do online. If you're at a party and you get annoyed and declare you're going to rape the person you don't like, under most circumstances it is going to get very uncomfortable for you very quickly. That's because our standards of behaviour when we're dealing directly with other human beings are against such things, and doing these things have consequences. People might stare at you, you can lose friends, the police could get involved, etc.

Any community has these standards, and they exist by the collective will of the community. So, if somebody posts an abusive message in a community where this is against the standards of the community, there are consequences - the post could be deleted, the account could be banned, and if it's something criminal, the police could get involved. So, members of the community are less likely to do the things against the standards of the community.

This is peer pressure in action. I suppose you could also call it a form of peer-to-peer social contract, if you want. And it works.

So, if an entire forum community, for example, decides that it doesn't like a kind of behaviour, and enough people bring the matter up with the mods or admins, change happens. Posts that were previously not censured become censured. Those who were behaving against the new standards either leave or fall into line. There will still be some abuse, but it will be greatly reduced, harder to deal with, and much easier for the group to handle it when it does happen.

This doesn't involve taking away rights (believe me, taking away rights is a BAD idea). It involves the community coming together and deciding what it will and will not tolerate.

One of the ways of exerting this sort of pressure is just standing up and being counted. I signed the open letter against harassment - I stood up and was counted. And while that may not be as powerful as an entire community deciding that it won't put up with abusive posts and starting to enforce it, it's still a powerful message because of all the signatures.

As well, if a crime is committed, it should be treated as such. That's just common sense, but the reason law enforcement exists is to protect people from crimes (and yes, I know the irony of that statement considering Ferguson and the ongoing militarization of American police, but please bear with me). In #GamerGate, the people behind it committed a number of crimes to pull it off. If they are held to account and have to pay their debt to society for those crimes, those who follow them will have examples of real-world consequences, and be less likely to carry such actions out.

You're never going to be able to get rid of harassment. But, you can combat it, and nip it in the bud when it starts. None of this requires gross violations of privacy or the taking away of anybody's rights. It just takes people being willing to stand up, be counted, and push for a better community.

 

[minkus_draconus]

You don't stop it.
You suck it up and ignore it.

By reacting to it, you give the people harrassing you power.

It honestly worries me that a generation is growing up with such a thin skin that words on a screen can hurt their precious feelings and people will gather around them and say everything will be okay and they're just big meanies.

As someone who grew up before the internet and got bullied by actual real people who could physically attack me, the idea of words on a screen sending people into fits of anxiousness blows my mind.

I think the problem is often that it is more then "Just words on a screen". Too often in the recent crapfest those words were tuned with personal information, photographs, etc. honed to a fine point. The only reason all of that was done was to cause maximum harm. Words matter. There were people hoping a few of the targets would commit suicide in relation to those "Just words on a screen", and over the phone, and whatever other forms of harassment they could muster.

It didn't end with just some words on a screen.

 

[Plunkies]

Plunkies, speaking as a trained historian, I think you really don't understand the difference between innuendo and evidence. Permit me to demonstrate the difference.

Sure. Everyone knows "trained historians" are experts on things like "innuendo" and "evidence", I mean, that's common knowledge right? I didn't realize we had such a professional on our hands.

Though it's strange that you would use the word "innuendo" incorrectly. I'd hardly expect that kind of mistake from a trained historian. There's no insinuation. It's a direct accusation based on circumstantial evidence gained from her own screenshot that she posted. On top of that we have her own suspicious actions and the fact that she directly profits from these threats. Unfortunately we don't have any more evidence because by some miracle only Sarkeesian somehow caught these tweets and no one else. Yet another expectation defying coincidence.

What you have is innuendo. There is no direct link to Anita Sarkeesian, besides the fact that the threat is directed at her. There is no smoking gun, where Sarkeesian brags about a false flag attack on herself, or makes any suggestion that it is anything but legitimate. Every single incongruity in the picture can be explained in any number of different ways, with nothing actually balancing it towards your own interpretation.

Exactly. That's what it would take for you, isn't it? Sarkeesian herself admitting to fabricating the entire thing. This is like if someone known to commit insurance fraud burns their house down and is sitting in the front yard with a bunch of empty gas cans, and you go "Well it COULD have been an accident!" Yes, I suppose anything is possible, technically speaking.

If every single suspicious fact in the picture, and every point I brought up can be explained then please do so. I would love to hear the analysis of a trained historian. The mental gymnastics required should be interesting.

Now, here is undercover work by Zoe Quinn with members of 4chan in a chat channel discussing how to engineer #gamergate: https://storify.com/strictmachine/gameovergate

Here is a chat log with further members of 4chan directly discussing tactics against Quinn: http://archive.today/Ler4O

Please note how these provide a direct link between 4chan and what happened to Zoe Quinn. THAT is evidence of a conspiracy.

You may take it from a trained historian with a defended MA thesis.

Conspiracy of what? To use sex to gain positive publicity and suppress negative publicity? Oh wait, that was Zoe Quinn. Sorry, this stuff gets me easily confused. To destroy a charity event? Oh no wait, that was Zoe Quinn too. Or to illegally DMCA criticism? Oh wait, that was her again too. Strange how you chose an example of yet another dishonest, feminist cyber beggar in the gaming scene. Seems like a trained historian might be able to go back in history and find a different example that doesn't look like a desperate attempt to distract from the topic. There's a 700 page thread on Zoe's shenanigans and they've been picked apart thousands of times.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

Here Comes Tomorrow: "By reacting to it, you give the people harrassing you power."

It really depends on how you react. One thing to think about is who is controlling the conversation - often this is just a matter of who is reacting to whom. Sometimes, if somebody's just emailing you and calling you names, the best thing to do is to add them to your ignore list. Other times, if it has reached a point of abuse, you want to shut them down - this can involve a message that basically dismisses them in such a way that anything they add you can then ignore (in short, your reaction takes control of the conversation away from them and makes it so that you no longer have to react to them at all).

Sometimes, such as if they're posting death threats with enough information to be credible, you have to go to the police and protect yourself. If they're trying to silence you, it is then worthwhile to speak out and draw attention to it - again, this is a form of taking control of the conversation and forcing them to react to you, rather than the other way around, providing them with a failure in the process.

But, it is situational.

 

[JimB]

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.

Uh, probably not a big deal, but this quote has been misattributed to me. I didn't say that. You're looking for Inglorious891.

 

[minkus_draconus]

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.

Uh, probably not a big deal, but this quote has been misattributed to me. I didn't say that. You're looking for Inglorious891.

Sorry. There was several layers of quotes and I must have made a mistake on where I trimmed it.

EDIT:
Upon editing it seems to have incremented the post number by 10 ( to your post) and your name for the quote even though the quote was from the right post. I have no idea what the hell happened.

 

[JimB]

Sorry. There was several layers of quotes and I must have made a mistake on where I trimmed it.

Don't worry about it; we've all been there. I just didn't want people thinking I'm the kind of person who hyphenates "overly defensive." My sterling reputation might never recover from such a blow!

 

[DrOswald]

Well, I made this point before, and possibly not as well as I should have. For long term change, it really does come down to peer pressure.

Here's the thing - consider for a moment why people don't act in the real world like they do online. If you're at a party and you get annoyed and declare you're going to rape the person you don't like, under most circumstances it is going to get very uncomfortable for you very quickly. That's because our standards of behaviour when we're dealing directly with other human beings are against such things, and doing these things have consequences. People might stare at you, you can lose friends, the police could get involved, etc.

Any community has these standards, and they exist by the collective will of the community. So, if somebody posts an abusive message in a community where this is against the standards of the community, there are consequences - the post could be deleted, the account could be banned, and if it's something criminal, the police could get involved. So, members of the community are less likely to do the things against the standards of the community.

This is peer pressure in action. I suppose you could also call it a form of peer-to-peer social contract, if you want. And it works.

So, if an entire forum community, for example, decides that it doesn't like a kind of behaviour, and enough people bring the matter up with the mods or admins, change happens. Posts that were previously not censured become censured. Those who were behaving against the new standards either leave or fall into line. There will still be some abuse, but it will be greatly reduced, harder to deal with, and much easier for the group to handle it when it does happen.

This doesn't involve taking away rights (believe me, taking away rights is a BAD idea). It involves the community coming together and deciding what it will and will not tolerate.

One of the ways of exerting this sort of pressure is just standing up and being counted. I signed the open letter against harassment - I stood up and was counted. And while that may not be as powerful as an entire community deciding that it won't put up with abusive posts and starting to enforce it, it's still a powerful message because of all the signatures.

As well, if a crime is committed, it should be treated as such. That's just common sense, but the reason law enforcement exists is to protect people from crimes (and yes, I know the irony of that statement considering Ferguson and the ongoing militarization of American police, but please bear with me). In #GamerGate, the people behind it committed a number of crimes to pull it off. If they are held to account and have to pay their debt to society for those crimes, those who follow them will have examples of real-world consequences, and be less likely to carry such actions out.

You're never going to be able to get rid of harassment. But, you can combat it, and nip it in the bud when it starts. None of this requires gross violations of privacy or the taking away of anybody's rights. It just takes people being willing to stand up, be counted, and push for a better community.

The problem is that most harassment does not happen in online communities. People are assholes there to be sure, but mostly they stick to their own corner of the internet and ***** to each other. The actual harassment usually occurs through communication tools like twitter or email, tools that have no community attached to them. You cannot stop this sort of harassment with peer pressure - there are no peers to put on the pressure. This is compounded by the fact that these communication tools offer near perfect anonymity. There is absolutely no possible way to bring any sort of pressure to these individuals. They can burn their internet identity forever and generate a new one with a few clicks of a button.

The idea that an online petition that says "harassing is bad, please stop" will have any positive effect seems, frankly, laughable and horribly naive to me. Though I admit it is better than the rabid outrage that we normally get, which I would bet real money only encourages harassment. Maybe if we can keep ourselves levelheaded for long enough the trolls and harassers will stop bothering us out of sheer boredom.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

DrOswald: I understand where you're coming from, but I have to disagree. Email and Twitter do have terms of service. Abuse can be reported, and accounts can be shut down. I remember reading that Twitter is right now in the process of tightening that stuff up, but the basic mechanisms to shut down abuse are there.

And, as far as a petition goes, public opinion does matter. People have forced dramatic changes to policy just by standing up and being counted. People just need to actually do it.

 

[Sticky]

Sticky: First, I posted two links, the second of which was to the full chat log. Second, I think this is the right thread, seeing as what happened to Quinn was a harassment campaign, and you're the one who brought Sarkeesian and conspiracy theories into the discussion. And, while you keep saying that all we have is Zoe Quinn's word, we also have the chat logs, and a post on 4chan telling everybody that they goofed this time, and to try again next year.

Now, I want to point something out about this particular case of harassment - this is very likely a special case. We now know that it was orchestrated, and that the reason it worked is that certain sections of our community has a talent for doing an impression of a swarm of angry hornets against a perceived threat.

Well, now the word is out. Something this big takes a while to process (it took about three days for it to sink in on my side), but people are realizing that they were played, and the community as a whole was fractured on purpose so that it would silence those the #GamerGaters (for lack of a better word) wanted silenced.

How long do you think it will be before the people behind #GamerGate find themselves on the receiving end of the very anger and rage they tapped into to make it all work, now that we know that they effectively launched an operation against our entire community? What do you think will happen to the people who helped them, and ran interference for them in forums and the like?

Food for thought, don't you think?

Again, there are no facts to back up any of these claims, zero, none. We've entered movie-plot territory of how hyperbolic the entire situation has spun into when it really just started with a few guys in a chat room talking about a hash tag.

The ONLY source any of these claims you have made is Zoe Quinn, without her they're just a bunch of IRC quotes taken out of context. And again, we can't trust her words at face value because she has one of the biggest stakes in all of this. Plus she's already done underhanded tactics to her opponents (Fine Young Capitalists, anyone?) to try and bully and distort the issue at hand, so you're throwing out the opinion of an entire group of people just so you can support the equally baseless opinions of someone else. To make a historical analogy, asking Zoe Quinn to make a report on #gamergate is like asking Pravda to write an informational piece on NATO [http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/10-09-2014/128496-nato_chaos-0/].

And these assumptions are also pretty alarmist; especially when you go as far as to claim that the '#Gamergaters' have somehow launched an operation against the public internet at large including this forum. Don't you think?

Stand back and ask yourself this question: Is it true that a small group of people that equal maybe a dozen in size is somehow posting all over the internet at once, or is it an issue that has seriously enraged people enough to respond? Considering the largest thread on The Escapist right now is a thread dedicated to gamergate, I find it really hard to believe that it's somehow the work of a few people. Reading the chat logs alone told me that it was just a chat room, of which many more just like it exist.

Let's look at this another way: The number one rule when it comes to shady operations, especially involving IRC, is "Only let people in you know". But we know #burgersandfries is a channel that has an open door policy. Anyone can go in and just start talking about anything until they leave or get banned. If Zoe is trying to spin #burgersandfries as a giant conspiracy against her. She shouldn't have labeled a channel that has an open-door policy this way where 'infiltrating' it is as simple as typing /join #burgersandfries while connected to the publicly available IRC server, something you could go do right now if you wanted. Because that very fact alone undermines every claim she's leveled against the chat as being a secret conspiracy (must be a very open secret!). This wouldn't be the first time she's leveled baseless claims against online communities if we look back at the Wizardchan fiasco. So we can safely assume that she's not a good source of information and that more investigation would be required to verify any of what you wrote.

How about this: If you believe Zoe Quinn is 100% truthful and it's a humongous conspiracy against her and against online communities in general, and that channel is the focal point. Then you should do some investigative journalism yourself. Greg Tito can't be the only unbiased journalist doing this, you should join in too. Just go to irc.rizon.net with an IRC client and type /join #burgersandfries. Take some notes on what they're talking about and who the ringleaders are, and report back to The Escapist with an exposé. People would praise you for doing this, for finally uncovering the gamergate conspiracy. You're a trained historian, so I'm sure you're well aware of how to document factual information in a clear and concise manner. People would be extremely happy that you finally got to the bottom of this yourself instead of having to go through a middle man. I would be the first person to apologize and admit you were right if you just went and did the leg work.

But, if the only reply you have to this is more opinion, I have to agree to disagree and step out of the argument because this discussion has long since left the original rails and has trailed far off into hypothetical territory. Which is a territory that neither of us should argue in because it's neither based in the facts of the matter and only pits our opinions against each other. Which is exactly the wrong way to discuss this and I think we've done the argument a disservice by going here.

And again, let's take this to the proper thread because this isn't about Zoe Quinn or Gamergate here as it is subject material that happens to be tangentially related.

 

[Sticky]

Here Comes Tomorrow: "By reacting to it, you give the people harrassing you power."

It really depends on how you react. One thing to think about is who is controlling the conversation - often this is just a matter of who is reacting to whom. Sometimes, if somebody's just emailing you and calling you names, the best thing to do is to add them to your ignore list. Other times, if it has reached a point of abuse, you want to shut them down - this can involve a message that basically dismisses them in such a way that anything they add you can then ignore (in short, your reaction takes control of the conversation away from them and makes it so that you no longer have to react to them at all).

I only agree with some part of this, but I think you have the right idea. Being reactionary to people who are fishing for reactions is the worst thing anyone can do and anyone who has posted out of anger or rage because of the trolls antagonizing him (like Phil Fish, and by the way, this is by far not the only time he's given up and 'quit twitter', like when he canceled fez 2 because some guy in a video called him a hack) I feel have become one part of the two-part problem harming online communities at large. It takes two to argue, and every time a troll feels that he's gotten a 'rise' out of someone, then that troll has won in his efforts. Taking control of the conversation may be a viable solution if the victim has enough time to invest, the problem is that the troll has all the time in the world to invest harassing someone if they want to do it enough. So any attention they receive is like pouring even a little bit of kerosene onto a fire. Taking control of the conversation would only work if one went in with a level head and a cool attitude, which is rarely the case when it comes to harassment.

Sometimes, such as if they're posting death threats with enough information to be credible, you have to go to the police and protect yourself. If they're trying to silence you, it is then worthwhile to speak out and draw attention to it - again, this is a form of taking control of the conversation and forcing them to react to you, rather than the other way around, providing them with a failure in the process.

But, it is situational.

I agree, which is why I think Anita should have gone to the police and kept this a private matter. Publicly announcing the act of putting her life on hold because of someone on twitter has not only emboldened the troll who did it, but also emboldened the other trolls who share similar tactics.

 

[Davroth]

Use the block button. That's the only way to combat online harassment. Don't draw attention to yourself by publicly sharing the ways you are getting trolled/harassed helps, too. That's just the kind of attention trolls want, so you basically invite more harassment by doing so. And if you feel seriously threatened, go to the police. If the thread is credible, they will surely help you. Those, I'd say, are the steps to successfully deal with harassment online.

 

[Thaluikhain]

And if you feel seriously threatened, go to the police. If the thread is credible, they will surely help you.

In theory, yes...but the police often have strange ideas about what constitutes a credible threat.

Of course, that's a generalisation, police forces vary a lot around the world, but there are a lot of complaints that various police forces aren't taking this sort of thing seriously until something happens IRL.