How do we realistically stop harassment online?
- Thread starter Inglorious891
- Start date
Recommended Videos
One idea would be to have some sort of Internet ID, with which it would be possible to identify you. If someone experiences that the harassment is rampant, that someone would be able to add a filter requiring Internet ID for the other party to be able to participate in the discussion, otherwise the message would be automatically deleted. Or more likely, a message stating "You need an Internet ID to participate in this discussion" would appear.
one... obviously ignore it.
things people say on the internet can only hurt you if you let them.
two... grow as a person and become mature. That's just solid advice for life.
realize that the people who have nothing better to do with their time than insult you on the internet are sad worthless people who only crave validation, but don't have the skills to do anything worthy of praise.
So pitying them is the most politically correct thing you could do.
Three...Block them. Pretty much every social media outlet I can think of has a block or ignore function. If it's really bothering you just remove it. Out of sight out of mind you know.
Four... um... DANCE! It's hard to be cross that someone the internet doesn't like you while you're dancing.
Things not to do would be to
One, respond to them... That's what they want! They don't have anything important in their lives they will just keep coming up with hurtful things to say to you if you respond to them.
Two, report them. If they do get their accounts deleted or banned they know what they're doing is working and they'll find some means to keep doing it
Three, cry about it. Internet trolls have the magical powers that give them a smug sense of self satasfaction when ever they make someone legitimately upset on the internet.
Four, um... post the video of you dancing on the internet. They'll probably just leave hurtful comments on that too.
things people say on the internet can only hurt you if you let them.
two... grow as a person and become mature. That's just solid advice for life.
realize that the people who have nothing better to do with their time than insult you on the internet are sad worthless people who only crave validation, but don't have the skills to do anything worthy of praise.
So pitying them is the most politically correct thing you could do.
Three...Block them. Pretty much every social media outlet I can think of has a block or ignore function. If it's really bothering you just remove it. Out of sight out of mind you know.
Four... um... DANCE! It's hard to be cross that someone the internet doesn't like you while you're dancing.
Things not to do would be to
One, respond to them... That's what they want! They don't have anything important in their lives they will just keep coming up with hurtful things to say to you if you respond to them.
Two, report them. If they do get their accounts deleted or banned they know what they're doing is working and they'll find some means to keep doing it
Three, cry about it. Internet trolls have the magical powers that give them a smug sense of self satasfaction when ever they make someone legitimately upset on the internet.
Four, um... post the video of you dancing on the internet. They'll probably just leave hurtful comments on that too.
You give up on a plant when you want it to die. If it works, were you defeated?Semiautodidactic said:
This is fair. I should have said that it won't solve the problem. Feeding the trolls sustains them, so the problem doesn't necessarily grow any worse. I fail to see how it improves.
Apples and oranges. People don't play League of Legends as an excuse to disseminate hatred through accompanying chat channels, so moderating those channels as a means to restrict access to the game is obviously quite effective in cleaning up the space and "rehabilitating" the players (or, you know, getting them to say whatever they need to say to keep playing the game). Moderating speech in a place that exists solely for speech is a very different animal.
Slight confusion of terms here. If you think a bound community, such as a forum, can be ruined by a small handful of unregulated people, you are correct. This is why most bound communities are regulated. If, however, you believe an unbound community, such as the community of "gamers", can be ruined by a small handful of necessarily unregulated (because there are no means to regulate them) people, then I have to strongly disagree. You can't generalize a larger group based on the actions of a relatively minor subgroup. It's beyond dangerous.
Start with an examination of your abuser. They have demonstrated faulty reasoning through a pronounced ability to broadcast horrendous abuse. They clearly delight in generating harm and offense, and the strength of said delight appears directly proportional to the size of the response. Now you're telling me that the "consequence" you're advocating, the grand acknowledgment of hurt feelings and frustration, which is obviously the positive feedback these trolls are seeking in the first place... is a good idea?
Forums are already welcome to implement such systems. The ones that do will gain or lose members based on the preferences of those individual people. New forums and communities will rise up to cater to anyone "left out". That's how a free market works. There is nothing you can do to change that. Nothing short of policing the entire internet, which is frankly insane and unacceptable. Carve out safe spaces, enjoy them, and move on.
Oh, and twitter doesn't need to police its userbase. If someone says something stupid on twitter, they get blocked, unfollowed, and frequently fired. Any controls beyond that would only invalidate the product itself. If twitter were harshly censored tomorrow, even by a "morally superior majority", it would cease to be the predominant open platform for expression. Something else would replace it in short order.
Forgive me, but I'm not going to spend my valuable free time in a counterproductive effort to squash a few trolls because other people refuse to acknowledge the basic realities of the situation.
It's not a false dilemma because there is no dilemma. It's not a choice between complete bloodthirsty anarchy and regimented Orwellian dystopia because it's not a choice at all. Shitty people are always going to have a platform to express themselves, and there is nothing you can do to stop that. You can remove them from a certain space, a certain community, through concentrated effort - obviously. But they will erect another space, another community, and you cannot stop that ball from rolling. Ever. So long as free expression exists, people will use it for evil. Censor it here, they go there. End of story, man. I mean I feel like I'm delivering bad news to you here. It's honestly kind of heartbreaking.
Not at all what I said. You can't police the entire internet, but you can obviously police sections of it. What the hell do you think a forum is? I believe an intelligent conversation, a careful, nuanced, reasoned debate, should take place with controls. This means "not the comments section of youtube or twitter".
Nah, not what I was getting at. I think holding "intelligent conversations" in controlled spaces is a good idea, but the chaotic outland of the unrestricted internet will always exist as a necessary force. Ideologies and the people served by them tend to become entrenched and comfortable and, almost inevitably, corrupt. When the majority are on the outside looking in, those controlled spaces are necessarily in line to be overrun and broken. Just the way it goes.
The same form of argument is used to justify the persecution of Muslims. I have no control over what a "fellow gamer" might say, and I will not be held accountable for their actions. Moreover, if my opponent is going to ignore what I have to say based on the actions of another unrelated person whom I cannot control, I am going to rightfully label my opponent a coward.
Edit: In the end, I'm not really sweating it. If people want to put out a fire with a can of gasoline, that's their right. I'm not here to control anyone.
Harassment isn't a symptom of being online, it's a symptom of people being able to communicate with one another. The internet does nothing but connect people to other people, and often people are shitty to one another. It's sad, but true. I'd guess the root cause is societal, but then again every culture and society in the world has people who are shit to one another, so maybe it's biological, something inherent to people.
I don't oppose reasonable attempts to limit this kind of harassment, but the only way to truly end it altogether would be to limit free speech and communication in general, which is a trade-off I don't think is worthwhile.
A better alternative is to have different areas and sites with different rules and different standards on what is acceptable, which is basically what we have now. The Escapist has effective moderators enforcing fairly strict rules, so this site is relatively free from harassment and hate speech, making it an ideal place for some. Other sites (4chan as an example) take the opposite approach and attract people who want more limitless communication and can deal with harassment.
I've never seen an outright dismissal have any positive effect on an angry person, whereas responding reasonably and showing that you're willing to listen to their views (even if the other person is not doing the same) sometimes does. It is a pretty difficult thing to do sometimes, so it's understandable that people don't often do it, but it certainly seems to be the best way of making a positive difference.
I don't oppose reasonable attempts to limit this kind of harassment, but the only way to truly end it altogether would be to limit free speech and communication in general, which is a trade-off I don't think is worthwhile.
A better alternative is to have different areas and sites with different rules and different standards on what is acceptable, which is basically what we have now. The Escapist has effective moderators enforcing fairly strict rules, so this site is relatively free from harassment and hate speech, making it an ideal place for some. Other sites (4chan as an example) take the opposite approach and attract people who want more limitless communication and can deal with harassment.
Maybe I'm just cynical, but I really doubt this kind of thing would help. In my experience dismissal just makes people angry (or angrier), and pushes them further into extremism and defensiveness. The people who harass others think of the people they target as bad guys or enemies who can't be reasoned with, and this justifies any actions they take in their minds. When they're dismissed outright they see it as being proven totally right about the other side ignoring them, they'll immediately lump you in with the rest of their "enemies" as someone who is trying to suppress their views and continue to resort to more and more extreme methods to be heard.Robert B. Marks said:
I've never seen an outright dismissal have any positive effect on an angry person, whereas responding reasonably and showing that you're willing to listen to their views (even if the other person is not doing the same) sometimes does. It is a pretty difficult thing to do sometimes, so it's understandable that people don't often do it, but it certainly seems to be the best way of making a positive difference.
The only realistic way to stop online harassment is to go back to the days where it was expected of you to have awareness of your audience on the internet, and to have a thicker skin than the one you wore in real life. You cannot tell people to behave themselves on an anonymous medium. The fact that we've come to this crossroads where we are seriously discussing trying to change the internet itself for the benefit of a few is silly, and there is no way to enforce it.
Even if we turned to hyperbolic levels of fascism instilled in the general populace. Where every computer would burst into flames at the mere hint of harassing someone else online, people would still find a way to make others feel uncomfortable on the internet. It is a mere fact that people have to accept when they join an online community of any kind.
Also to those suggesting we 'drown out the trolls', that doesn't work. At all. It only takes one or two trolls to make someone feel uncomfortable and there's nothing an entire ocean of reasonable voices can do to drown it out. If anything, having an ocean of reasonable voices saying to not listen to the trolls only empowers the trolls when they realize their opposition is too meek to do anything about them and the people they're targeting are too thin-skinned to just ignore them. When you listen to trolls, of any kind, they've won. They've got exactly what they want with a minimal investment of time and effort. Think of it as a kind of insurgency in online communities in which the other inhabitants are powerless to stop.
The only solution to the problem we currently face is education. We need to let people know that anyone who feels 'threatened' by words on the internet need to go the police if they think their lives are in danger and that trolls are serious with their threats.
This is called 'Threat Assessment', every person who was on the internet circa the 90's was schooled in it the hard way the first time someone sent them an email with an attachment they didn't recognize.
What we also need to let people know, is that melting down on the internet, and/or letting the trolls know how much it gets to them is the exact opposite response they need to have when faced with meanness on the internet. When someone is mean on the internet, the first thing to do is to not look at them and then seriously consider if they have the means to actually cause harm. Which is again, a key component of threat assessment that every person on the internet needs some education on. It's to recognize that the correct solution is not to post on your twitter about how you were harassed and how scared you are for your life, because that only tells the troll how easy it's going to be to pick at you.
And when a troll wins, or is emboldened by the knowledge that his baseless scare tactics carry real and serious harm and threat, we lose. Every person on the internet who wants to have a serious conversation without hysteria coming into the mix loses. That troll now feels he has a very valuable, very serious weapon and any other trolls or just mean jerks in general are going to see that weapon and take notes about how effective it was. Which only makes them want to use it MORE and ruin even more lives.
The short version: What we need to solve the harassment problem is to teach the new denizens of the internet who weren't around during the wild west days about threat assessment. Teaching them that it isn't possible to stop assholes from using a keyboard, and to recognize when to respond and when to block someone and assume anything else they have to say isn't worth their time.
It may seem like a heartless way to respond to the problem, but it's a far more realistic solution than "let's change everyone else and hopefully the people who have made it their past-time to hurt the feelings of other people will somehow change themselves too".
EDIT: And the people suggesting "peer pressure" as a means to stop trolls. Please ask yourself this question: If their goal on the internet is to get attention from people by posting things they know is not true, then how is giving them more attention going to stop them? If anything, by acknowledging their very existence, you've just told that troll that he has gotten under your skin enough for you to post a reply to something they said. The entire reason trolling even works is because it takes almost zero time or effort to make a troll post while it takes serious time and attention to shoot one down. It is the closest analog to asymmetrical warfare on the internet.
And the sooner people realize that, realize that it's all a real-life analysis problem about the value of time and effort spent arguing or pressuring people vs the probability of those people ever being convinced when it's questionable if they ever believed their own postings at all; then the better off every online community everywhere will be.
Even if we turned to hyperbolic levels of fascism instilled in the general populace. Where every computer would burst into flames at the mere hint of harassing someone else online, people would still find a way to make others feel uncomfortable on the internet. It is a mere fact that people have to accept when they join an online community of any kind.
Also to those suggesting we 'drown out the trolls', that doesn't work. At all. It only takes one or two trolls to make someone feel uncomfortable and there's nothing an entire ocean of reasonable voices can do to drown it out. If anything, having an ocean of reasonable voices saying to not listen to the trolls only empowers the trolls when they realize their opposition is too meek to do anything about them and the people they're targeting are too thin-skinned to just ignore them. When you listen to trolls, of any kind, they've won. They've got exactly what they want with a minimal investment of time and effort. Think of it as a kind of insurgency in online communities in which the other inhabitants are powerless to stop.
The only solution to the problem we currently face is education. We need to let people know that anyone who feels 'threatened' by words on the internet need to go the police if they think their lives are in danger and that trolls are serious with their threats.
This is called 'Threat Assessment', every person who was on the internet circa the 90's was schooled in it the hard way the first time someone sent them an email with an attachment they didn't recognize.
What we also need to let people know, is that melting down on the internet, and/or letting the trolls know how much it gets to them is the exact opposite response they need to have when faced with meanness on the internet. When someone is mean on the internet, the first thing to do is to not look at them and then seriously consider if they have the means to actually cause harm. Which is again, a key component of threat assessment that every person on the internet needs some education on. It's to recognize that the correct solution is not to post on your twitter about how you were harassed and how scared you are for your life, because that only tells the troll how easy it's going to be to pick at you.
And when a troll wins, or is emboldened by the knowledge that his baseless scare tactics carry real and serious harm and threat, we lose. Every person on the internet who wants to have a serious conversation without hysteria coming into the mix loses. That troll now feels he has a very valuable, very serious weapon and any other trolls or just mean jerks in general are going to see that weapon and take notes about how effective it was. Which only makes them want to use it MORE and ruin even more lives.
The short version: What we need to solve the harassment problem is to teach the new denizens of the internet who weren't around during the wild west days about threat assessment. Teaching them that it isn't possible to stop assholes from using a keyboard, and to recognize when to respond and when to block someone and assume anything else they have to say isn't worth their time.
It may seem like a heartless way to respond to the problem, but it's a far more realistic solution than "let's change everyone else and hopefully the people who have made it their past-time to hurt the feelings of other people will somehow change themselves too".
EDIT: And the people suggesting "peer pressure" as a means to stop trolls. Please ask yourself this question: If their goal on the internet is to get attention from people by posting things they know is not true, then how is giving them more attention going to stop them? If anything, by acknowledging their very existence, you've just told that troll that he has gotten under your skin enough for you to post a reply to something they said. The entire reason trolling even works is because it takes almost zero time or effort to make a troll post while it takes serious time and attention to shoot one down. It is the closest analog to asymmetrical warfare on the internet.
And the sooner people realize that, realize that it's all a real-life analysis problem about the value of time and effort spent arguing or pressuring people vs the probability of those people ever being convinced when it's questionable if they ever believed their own postings at all; then the better off every online community everywhere will be.
No. If anything, anonymity is the one thing guaranteeing free speech and freedom from harassment.unambiguouslygabe said:
Anonymous tips.
Whistle-blowers.
Confidential sources.
Controversial opinions.
Political and cultural intolerance.
If you haven't followed the "GamerGate" conspiracy, you'll find in the records a few "journos" ducking into anonymous message boards to get their voices heard, out of a very real threat of losing their jobs.
All over the world we are fortunate enough to have a medium to express ourselves without fear of someone (family, employer, friends, school) finding out and making us a target in some way. How would you like to lose any of those contacts because of things you say online, even if they aren't harassing?
It disgusted me to listen to some radio hosts talk about this topic, saying the same thing. They felt their names were out there on the radio, and they want these online scumbags to live by the same rules (and that means everyone else has to). Well, they forgot to mention how they do not have freedom of speech: they are *extremely* bound by FCC regs, production and program advertisers -- one slip of the tongue could cost them their careers and their station a lot of revenue.
This is not the way the public should live, and it's sickening how anyone could want a web where everyone is feared into filtering what they say. Fuck that. Ask the very staff on these boards if they wish they could say what they want on here like many of us do every day.
No one has to tolerate bullying, and there will be miscarriages of justice when we have protections of free speech, but that doesn't mean you fuck up the whole system because you get upset when it happens.
Edit: @unambiguouslygabe - Points are still valid, since this is a popular opinion, even if you don't endorse it yourself.
Well i've read about a study in which they noticed that when people are forced to re-read what they write on the net 90% of the messages end up not being sent. A lot of the online hatred/rage/etc. is often posted in a moment of anger/frustration. While I don't know how one would be able to implement such a system this could already greatly help.
But overall i think online harassment is an unfortunate price we have to pay for internet anonymity/freedom.
But overall i think online harassment is an unfortunate price we have to pay for internet anonymity/freedom.
Lunncal: "Maybe I'm just cynical, but I really doubt this kind of thing would help. In my experience dismissal just makes people angry (or angrier), and pushes them further into extremism and defensiveness. The people who harass others think of the people they target as bad guys or enemies who can't be reasoned with, and this justifies any actions they take in their minds. When they're dismissed outright they see it as being proven totally right about the other side ignoring them, they'll immediately lump you in with the rest of their "enemies" as someone who is trying to suppress their views and continue to resort to more and more extreme methods to be heard."
Not to put too fine a point on it, but short of actual physical acts of terrorism, how far further is there left to go? We're at the point of abuse and harassment campaigns and death threats - and they're acting like they speak for the entire gaming community. Phil Fish got driven out of the industry because he dared to support Zoe Quinn. You're talking about them as though they just want a seat at the table, when they're actively trying to ensure that they are the only people allowed to come close to the table.
We're already at the point of online lynch mobs. Appeasement will only embolden them. Anybody wanting to make this stop has to take a stand against it.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but short of actual physical acts of terrorism, how far further is there left to go? We're at the point of abuse and harassment campaigns and death threats - and they're acting like they speak for the entire gaming community. Phil Fish got driven out of the industry because he dared to support Zoe Quinn. You're talking about them as though they just want a seat at the table, when they're actively trying to ensure that they are the only people allowed to come close to the table.
We're already at the point of online lynch mobs. Appeasement will only embolden them. Anybody wanting to make this stop has to take a stand against it.
You don't
You either become numb to the endless flow of hate, you become it's source, or you leave forever, those are your options.
It's like going to a desert and trying to figure out how to get rid of all the snakes and scorpions. You can kill a few, a few thousand if you're resourceful, but you will never kill them all.
You either become numb to the endless flow of hate, you become it's source, or you leave forever, those are your options.
It's like going to a desert and trying to figure out how to get rid of all the snakes and scorpions. You can kill a few, a few thousand if you're resourceful, but you will never kill them all.
It's really easy, you just change human nature. Oh wait, that's actually pretty tough to do. Maybe you strap on your big boy pants and deal with it. People are pricks, don't stick a spoon in your eye over it.
If Anita wants to stop receiving death threats then perhaps she should stop writing death threats, sending them to herself, and then posting them on the internet to get attention. Of course, that's her entire business model so I seriously doubt she would do that. Then she wouldn't be able to put out a press release that she's going into hiding, the inconspicuous master of stealth that she is. Maybe she can get another 150,000 dollars donated to her to make a handful of videos whining about princess peach.
That's a tough question to really answer, and I doubt there's anything that can be done to totally stop online scum from being, well, scum outside of just getting rid of online. As individuals, however, we can choose to stand up against it when it occurs. We need to stop sitting back and saying that "it's just part of the internet." It may not be something we can totally eradicate, but it is something we can stop from condoning or taking part in.
Do I have to even say it?Plunkies said:
This only proves 3 things:
1. The person making the threats has really good syntax.
2. Anita takes screenshots of threats quite quickly given how fucking scary they are.
3. You have yet to prove anything aside from you are sorely misguided and indulge in bizarre delusions.
How about we all become better people?
Is that option off the table now?
Oh wait; we could encourage each other maybe. You know, when you see someone being Boss you message them and be like ?GG. You?ve earned my respect for being a good sport.?
And then they can be like ?you know, you?re not have bad yourself.?
You don?t even have to police people! And everyone can stay anonymous! EVERYONE WINS!
Is that option off the table now?
Oh wait; we could encourage each other maybe. You know, when you see someone being Boss you message them and be like ?GG. You?ve earned my respect for being a good sport.?
And then they can be like ?you know, you?re not have bad yourself.?
You don?t even have to police people! And everyone can stay anonymous! EVERYONE WINS!
We chip away at it bit by bit. People always think situations like this can only be won with one big battle. It's not. It's gonna be a million small ones. Taking stands in minor situations to stand against it.
Also we stop saying "Well it's the internet, what do you expect" every single time it happens. Stop making it acceptable.
Also we stop saying "Well it's the internet, what do you expect" every single time it happens. Stop making it acceptable.