View From the Road: Where Everybody Knows Your Name

[Shjade]

I really want to know how you're making the leap in logic from me saying "Man, wouldn't it be nice if teenage dickheads on Xbox Live were held accountable for the racist and derogatory bullshit that they spew" to me apparently saying "Protest is bad and everyone should fall in line and never criticize power."

It was around the point when you said the Gainax director was "held accountable" in a manner you found appropriate for stating an opinion about a website.

Yes, and hmm, why do you suppose he said that, yes? Maybe because 2ch has its fair share of assholes and dickweeds, too? So it isn't a bastion of polite discourse? Yes, he was held accountable for what he said. Good, he should have been.

I thought you were being reasonable up to that post. Then you went and essentially said, "No one should be free to share their opinions - particularly unpopular opinions - without fear of reprisal, justified or unjustified, for such." This discourages protest and resistance in that it supports superior force being used to suppress said resistance.

Not what you intended? Perhaps. There in the language? Yes. Part of the problem being your use of "held accountable" with no suggestion of what "accountable" means. There's no limiter on it. It's not saying "held accountable within reason" or "should face consequences equal to their actions" or anything like that. All it says it "there will be blood." Really? So Jim thinking Halo was terrible and saying so on a mostly pro-Halo board means Jim should be "held accountable" for having the audacity to disagree with the group? How heavily? Would a stream of crank calls suffice? Does he need to be harassed at work? Should he get his tires slashed? What do you think is appropriate? This is without branching into the even dicier area of being searched so that people not attached to the board find out you have any opinion on Halo when they didn't even know you play video games - how politely you write your post has no impact there.

I get where you're coming from. No one likes assholes on the internet, or in reality. That said, if someone referred to you by various insulting racial slurs and asked if he could borrow your little sister for a romp in the hay, kicking him in the nuts for it is still sending YOUR ass to jail, not his. It might be nice to think of holding someone "accountable" for their actions in some vigilante justice way (as games suggest is the norm!), but that is not the way things work. Being "held accountable" for being a dick on a board is getting suspended/banned from that board. That's all it merits and it has nothing to do with your name on the board - you're banned whether you're John Doe or Misty Milkwhiskers.

Oh, regarding authenticators: from what I've read those don't add any security to logging into the forums as the forums do not require that particular input, just a username and password. So no, getting an authenticator does not solve Rogue Wolf's theoretical problem of someone else logging in and spewing crap on the forum in his name.

 

[John Funk]

I really want to know how you're making the leap in logic from me saying "Man, wouldn't it be nice if teenage dickheads on Xbox Live were held accountable for the racist and derogatory bullshit that they spew" to me apparently saying "Protest is bad and everyone should fall in line and never criticize power."

It was around the point when you said the Gainax director was "held accountable" in a manner you found appropriate for stating an opinion about a website.

Yes, and hmm, why do you suppose he said that, yes? Maybe because 2ch has its fair share of assholes and dickweeds, too? So it isn't a bastion of polite discourse? Yes, he was held accountable for what he said. Good, he should have been.

I thought you were being reasonable up to that post. Then you went and essentially said, "No one should be free to share their opinions - particularly unpopular opinions - without fear of reprisal, justified or unjustified, for such." This discourages protest and resistance in that it supports superior force being used to suppress said resistance.

Not what you intended? Perhaps. There in the language? Yes. Part of the problem being your use of "held accountable" with no suggestion of what "accountable" means. There's no limiter on it. It's not saying "held accountable within reason" or "should face consequences equal to their actions" or anything like that. All it says it "there will be blood." Really? So Jim thinking Halo was terrible and saying so on a mostly pro-Halo board means Jim should be "held accountable" for having the audacity to disagree with the group? How heavily? Would a stream of crank calls suffice? Does he need to be harassed at work? Should he get his tires slashed? What do you think is appropriate? This is without branching into the even dicier area of being searched so that people not attached to the board find out you have any opinion on Halo when they didn't even know you play video games - how politely you write your post has no impact there.

I get where you're coming from. No one likes assholes on the internet, or in reality. That said, if someone referred to you by various insulting racial slurs and asked if he could borrow your little sister for a romp in the hay, kicking him in the nuts for it is still sending YOUR ass to jail, not his. It might be nice to think of holding someone "accountable" for their actions in some vigilante justice way (as games suggest is the norm!), but that is not the way things work. Being "held accountable" for being a dick on a board is getting suspended/banned from that board. That's all it merits and it has nothing to do with your name on the board - you're banned whether you're John Doe or Misty Milkwhiskers.

Oh, regarding authenticators: from what I've read those don't add any security to logging into the forums as the forums do not require that particular input, just a username and password. So no, getting an authenticator does not solve Rogue Wolf's theoretical problem of someone else logging in and spewing crap on the forum in his name.

Uh, if a director directly insults a group of his fans and then chooses to resign to save face, that's his choice, isn't it? He held himself accountable for his actions.

And I wish you (generic you) wouldn't take arguments to absurd extremes. It makes it very hard to discuss anything. Do you really think that someone slashing tires for disagreeing with fans on a message board is on the same level as someone having his name attached to hate speech?

If they started shipping authenticators with the game, then they certainly could require one to log into the forum.

 

[Shjade]

Uh, if a director directly insults a group of his fans and then chooses to resign to save face, that's his choice, isn't it? He held himself accountable for his actions.

And I wish you (generic you) wouldn't take arguments to absurd extremes. It makes it very hard to discuss anything. Do you really think that someone slashing tires for disagreeing with fans on a message board is on the same level as someone having his name attached to hate speech?

If they started shipping authenticators with the game, then they certainly could require one to log into the forum.

In order:

-Sure, it's his choice. Of course, he was insulting the product of an anonymous messageboard - an insult which, judging by your assessment of said boards in this thread, I suspect you'd agree with, yes? Fans or not, isn't he just holding them accountable for what he saw them spewing on 2ch? So he's being held accountable for holding others accountable? I like where this thread (of logic) is going!

-I didn't realize a little property damage and annoying phone calls were considered absurd extremes. I thought they were pretty generic examples of vandalism and harassment. I didn't suggest any stalking was going on. Nobody got hurt. Jim didn't even lose his job over his views on Halo. I wish you (generic glue) wouldn't address mundane scenarios as absurd extremes. It makes it hard to believe you're weighing the possibilities.

That aside, you're comparing things that are part of the same chain of events: someone having his name attached to hate speech leads to someone getting their tires slashed. They aren't parallel ideas, they're ideas that follow one another. Taking the question at face value, however...hard to say. Getting your tires slashed is an immediate and obvious consequence with a set value (the replacement cost of the tires + whatever time you lost that day due to having no tires).

Having your name attached to hate speech is a more nebulous consequence: potential employers might see that when considering you for a job later or they might not or they might not care if they do or they might share your views and think it positive (unlikely, but possible). Depending on your name's rarity it might not have any impact on you at all. Who cares if John Doe thinks that [censored for racial content] and as such they should all go back to [nonspecific country of origin] where they can [illegal acts involving non-human copulation]? It's not like you know which John Doe thinks that. No additional "accountability" (still an undefined term here) at all unless your name really parses you out of the crowd. Makes it very hard to compare with the much more straightforward instance of having some tires destroyed.

In short, I'm not sure what your question is meant to accomplish, other than to, again, ask for limitations on free speech. No, I'm not a bigot, nor do I endorse hate speech, but I stand by the concept of being able to say it - anonymously if you so choose - without unlawful reprisal for doing so even if it's an incredibly unpopular opinion to express. In this country, at least. I can't speak for the world. Again, you can get banned from the posting community if the management there doesn't approve of your viewpoint - it's their forum - but beyond that it's persecuting free speech. That you don't like what's being said does not permit you to go out and hold someone accountable for that most egregious act of having an opinion and expressing it in a manner you dislike.

-They certainly could. They currently don't. They could also require RealID names to be substituted for character names in their games, but we may as well stick with what they're actually doing rather than assume what they will do in future, yeah?

 

[John Funk]

Uh, if a director directly insults a group of his fans and then chooses to resign to save face, that's his choice, isn't it? He held himself accountable for his actions.

And I wish you (generic you) wouldn't take arguments to absurd extremes. It makes it very hard to discuss anything. Do you really think that someone slashing tires for disagreeing with fans on a message board is on the same level as someone having his name attached to hate speech?

If they started shipping authenticators with the game, then they certainly could require one to log into the forum.

In order:

-Sure, it's his choice. Of course, he was insulting the product of an anonymous messageboard - an insult which, judging by your assessment of said boards in this thread, I suspect you'd agree with, yes? Fans or not, isn't he just holding them accountable for what he saw them spewing on 2ch? So he's being held accountable for holding others accountable? I like where this thread (of logic) is going!

-I didn't realize a little property damage and annoying phone calls were considered absurd extremes. I thought they were pretty generic examples of vandalism and harassment. I didn't suggest any stalking was going on. Nobody got hurt. Jim didn't even lose his job over his views on Halo. I wish you (generic glue) wouldn't address mundane scenarios as absurd extremes. It makes it hard to believe you're weighing the possibilities.

That aside, you're comparing things that are part of the same chain of events: someone having his name attached to hate speech leads to someone getting their tires slashed. They aren't parallel ideas, they're ideas that follow one another. Taking the question at face value, however...hard to say. Getting your tires slashed is an immediate and obvious consequence with a set value (the replacement cost of the tires + whatever time you lost that day due to having no tires).

Having your name attached to hate speech is a more nebulous consequence: potential employers might see that when considering you for a job later or they might not or they might not care if they do or they might share your views and think it positive (unlikely, but possible). Depending on your name's rarity it might not have any impact on you at all. Who cares if John Doe thinks that [censored for racial content] and as such they should all go back to [nonspecific country of origin] where they can [illegal acts involving non-human copulation]? It's not like you know which John Doe thinks that. No additional "accountability" (still an undefined term here) at all unless your name really parses you out of the crowd. Makes it very hard to compare with the much more straightforward instance of having some tires destroyed.

In short, I'm not sure what your question is meant to accomplish, other than to, again, ask for limitations on free speech. No, I'm not a bigot, nor do I endorse hate speech, but I stand by the concept of being able to say it - anonymously if you so choose - without unlawful reprisal for doing so even if it's an incredibly unpopular opinion to express. In this country, at least. I can't speak for the world. Again, you can get banned from the posting community if the management there doesn't approve of your viewpoint - it's their forum - but beyond that it's persecuting free speech. That you don't like what's being said does not permit you to go out and hold someone accountable for that most egregious act of having an opinion and expressing it in a manner you dislike.

-They certainly could. They currently don't. They could also require RealID names to be substituted for character names in their games, but we may as well stick with what they're actually doing rather than assume what they will do in future, yeah?

I really don't have any interest in arguing if you're going to start nitpicking and putting words in my mouth.

It's a simple idea, really: Own your words. You can say whatever you want, as long as you acknowledge that you said it. In real life, if you start insulting my family/being a bigot/homophobe, maybe I can't punch you without being held liable for assault (though hey, accountable for my actions), but I CAN ... refuse to associate with you, tell everyone that you said it so they'll know what to think of you, refuse to do business with your employer, etc.

The Gainax director owned up to his words. He held himself accountable for the things he said, as he should have. It was his choice to resign (though there was probably some pressure, yes) - is there something wrong with a man facing consequences for doing or saying something? I really don't understand your point here.

And yes, I think property damage and phone calls are absolutely "extremes," because they result in internet arguments crossing the line into real life, which is thus far something that has happened only rarely and something that gets reported on. You don't think that "man slashes car tires over internet message board argument" wouldn't get picked up? Really?

None of this is persecuting free speech. You have as much free speech as you have ever had. But with free speech comes responsibility, and the freedom of others to disagree and get angry at you. But they're responsible for what they do and say, too, and if they do something violent then they are also accountable for their actions. You know, the way things worked before the internet?

 

[Shjade]

The Gainax director owned up to his words. He held himself accountable for the things he said, as he should have. It was his choice to resign (though there was probably some pressure, yes) - is there something wrong with a man facing consequences for doing or saying something? I really don't understand your point here.

And yes, I think property damage and phone calls are absolutely "extremes," because they result in internet arguments crossing the line into real life, which is thus far something that has happened only rarely and something that gets reported on.

You're answering your own question here. There should absolutely be consequences for what you say and do. They should also be in proportion to what you've said and done.

You don't consider being forced to resign from your job over an opinion on an internet messageboard as being the result of an internet argument crossing the line into real life? I suppose it only counts if, in addition to losing his job, he also got a mean phone call from some of the board posters, because THAT would be too extreme.

There's no way to accurately measure or predict what sort of reaction anything you say on the internet will have. You might only be speaking to a specific audience (the known forum community) but it's a theoretically global audience. You can't please everybody and offending people unintentionally doesn't seem like something that should have serious consequences for you. Hell, offending people intentionally shouldn't have consequences stronger than actions taking place within that forum, depending of course on what you're doing to offend people.

For instance, if I were to insult you now to prove a point in this argument - I'm not going to as I think it unnecessary and rude - it would doubtless have immediate repercussions within this forum, as it should: you're on staff here, it's your show, throwing insults at you would be unwise regardless of how justified it might be (protip for people with short tempers: it never is). That's all well and good. Third Party observes this exchange and decides based on this one example that I'm too volatile for Job X. Hardly a fair judgment to make and could have serious impact on later career options.

But wait, wasn't I already "held accountable" on the forum for what I said, by the very person to whom I said it? Isn't this overkill? Wait, do I even know Third Party? Why is this any of your business? Oh, because you decided to screen me and it was one of the first things you saw so you didn't bother to continue searching through the many thoughtful and philosophical debates I've had on other forums (and possibly here, though I don't recall). Snap judgment! Always a good call. This is no more "extreme" an example than what happened with the Gainax fellow save that it's pre-emptive job stoppage rather than forced resignation from a present position, but is it a fair consequence for getting heated in one debate? If not, does Third Party have any accountability for their decision? Of course not, I'll never know why I didn't get that job anyway - I'll just be told the position was filled and that's that.

I'm getting long-winded. I'm trying to point out that trying to hold people accountable for discussions on the internet is too open-ended. There are no hard and fast rules for it; there's no way of knowing what will or won't end up in catastrophe. You can estimate. Lurking on a board for a while usually supplies you with the atmosphere accepted on that board - though it doesn't help you at all with possible consequences of other lurkers who just read, never post, and have wildly different values from the posters. In the end, though, it's just a guess, and there's no cap on possible consequences.

I post online much the way I speak in reality: mostly polite, informal, but sharp and to the point, even rude about it when someone just will not take a hint, but not in excess. The response to this varies much more widely and unexpectedly online than it does in the real world. These two environments are not the same and thinking you should treat one like the other in terms of accountability is a mistake.

You don't think that "man slashes car tires over internet message board argument" wouldn't get picked up? Really?

I think it's hard to prove motivation for slashed tires unless someone leaves a note explaining why said tires were slashed under your windshield wiper. All you know is your tires, they no work no more.

 

[Fearzone]

It's a simple idea, really: Own your words. You can say whatever you want, as long as you acknowledge that you said it. In real life, if you start insulting my family/being a bigot/homophobe, maybe I can't punch you without being held liable for assault (though hey, accountable for my actions), but I CAN ... refuse to associate with you, tell everyone that you said it so they'll know what to think of you, refuse to do business with your employer, etc.

If you live in the same town, this is true. But I can't see how this applies to dialogues on the Internet where the two people are likely to live in different states if not different countries or even different areas of a large city.

If one writes inappropriate or hateful speech in a post and is put on probation by moderators or banned based on the level of offense, that is accountability. Such moderation would lead to a more civil climate in the forums and does not require actual names. That is pretty much how the Escapist does it, and here I see some of the most civil and engaging dialog on the Internet.

In my first summer break from college, when I was home, George Bush the elder was president and was advocating a constitutional amendment against burning the U.S. flag. Our local paper wrote an editorial, and I was so angry at the editorial I wrote in a letter that was pretty inflammatory. They published it. I won't say which side I took, but is the kind of letter I would not write today and that I would prefer that nobody would read and attach it to my name. My poor dad who has the same name as me had some explaining to do to his friends. Anyway, that letter to the editor is probably long forgotten and needs never to be revived. But what if I had written it on the Internet with my real name? As they say in the pornography business: the Internet is forever.

 

[Kandon Arc]

I cant believe the otcry that came from the whole thing...

Well, not so much believe, but, shocked really might be the better word...peoeples name, that in itself, isnt so much of a terrible thing.

There certainly is the privacy issue, but, I think this is really just an issue for people who let it become one...who flippantly let loose there details about where they live, exact aree, ect. without seeing if a trust source

You do realise that being on the electoral roll in the UK puts your address and telephone number on the internet?

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

Anyone who posts racist, homophobic or any other sort of bias should be swiftfully and mercilessly banhammered. Simple.

So you don't think anyone who says things you find offensive or even the majority finds offensive shouldn't be allowed to speak? Do you realize that everyone finds something mortally offensive and if we used the "might offend someone" standard eventually nobody would be able to say anything?

Did you know the word gyp is racist? Would you swiftly ban anyone who uses that word? How about niggardly? How about saying "in general I don't think women are interested in the same kinds of games as men are." That shows a bias, would you ban me for it? Should I be prohibited from publicly expressing that opinion?

But back on topic, if your definition of "held accountable", something Mr. Funk has refused to clarify, is banning posters for words some people might not like then how would real names help that? The mods/cms could still police just easily using screen names.