Slashdot Mirror
"Please Die": Freedom From Speech
"Please die," a Slashdot reader urged a few weeks ago after reading - and apparently disliking -- a column I'd written.
I didn't take it as a literal threat. Messages like that are uncommon via e-mail, but they aren't unheard of, either. I e-mailed back, curious as to why the guy expressed himself so aggressively, when he could simply have disagreed or, even more logically, just stopped reading. "You're not a Linux geek," he jeered. "It took you months just to install a Linux system."
This was all true, I wrote back, but hardly explained his blast. He blew me off, saying something lame about my not controlling what he said. In fairness, I doubt he knew why he'd responded that way. It was probably instinctive.
Electronic communities mirror the outside world. They face tensions, growing pains, political differences and the other usual evolutions.
E-communities are fluid. As they grow, they bring in newcomers who have different values, languages and customs, sometimes even different goals.
In all but the most restricted e-communities, hostility, anger and pressure are the by-products, a process as inevitable as it is unpleasant. It tends to create what are, to varying degrees, hostile environments, especially when it comes to public postings and discussions.
All over the Net, communities confront the same choice: freedom or civility. For anybody writing online, this is a familiar experience. Truly dangerous people aren't likely to post anonymous insults or send nasty e-mail. They have more effective weapons. Online flaming - not to be confused with disagreement - is almost by definition an act of social cowardice.
There are good arguments in support of flaming. Flamers can deflate the pompous, correct the inaccurate, educate the ignorant, level the communications playing field.
"Flaming is an equalizer," wrote an anonymous flamer on this site. "It puts me on a level with people like you, and keeps me there."
Flaming can even be an effective communications tool: "There's a style of argument I see practiced on the Net and almost nowhere else," wrote Ken, "a very precise, defensive style. I like it because it's based on scrupulously differentiating what you 'think' from what you 'know.' Flaming forces people to think about their opinions, he argued.
Ken has a point, but his is a benign interpretation of this new kind of social aggression and brutality. On this and other sites that encourage open discussion, online hostility is a significant problem, especially at a time when the need for open discussion about technology (Y2K comes to mind) becomes even more urgent.
The Net has been a hostile environment almost from the first; hostility is nearly a cherished tradition. The geek/nerd/programmer culture is probably statistically one of the least violent in the world, yet on the Net and the Web it's generated a consistently abusive atmosphere.
One of the most striking things about nasty e-mail and vicious public postings is that they're almost always rooted in surreal distance: the sender rarely thinks of his target as a human being. He's sending words to a remote computer system, unsure they'll even be read.
Once there's contact, the flamer is often amazed by a response. He almost always apologizes - 90 per cent of the time would be my guess, or replies in a more civil tone, or flees.
I get an average of 200 personal messages after a column appears here, sometimes more, sometimes less. About a fourth are written in disagreement, but usually only three or four are personal or hostile. There are typically even more public postings about my columns, and a dramatically larger proportion - between a quarter and half - are either sharply critical or pointedly hostile.
This bewildering dichotomy is expected by anybody who expresses an opinion regularly on a website. It was the same when I wrote for Hotwired and other websites. In fact, many of the e-mails I get constitute apologies for or laments about the sometimes vicious nature of public messaging online.
Not only does this odd reality, unique to electronic communication, create a hostile environment, it distorts reality since civil communications are rarely made public while attacks are often seen publicly. People reading columns, stories and commentary rush to defend the target or apologize for the assaults, rarely realizing that the attackers are a small minority though they appear to be dominant.
This misperception triggers a series of off-base notions about ideas, opinions and reactions that play off of one another, often inaccurately. Ideas that seem to be unpopular are sometimes popular; arguments that win widespread approval can seem widely condemned. There's no way for the reader to accurately or realistically gauge mood, temperament or perspective. Ideas aren't really tested in this way; they're aborted.
Worse, the ferocity of the environment discourages all but the most confident or determined posters. Flaming, like skateboarding, seems overwhelmingly an adolescent form of recreation. Whole segments of the human population - women, the elderly, those who speak foreign languages, newcomers, children - are excluded from the conversation or choose to avoid it.
Some are too vulnerable too join in; many are tough enough but they don't see much reason to bother.
So flamers discourage free speech, prey on the weak and dominate discussion. They have a "chilling effect" on the movement of opinions and ideas, a phrase more often associated with First Amendment law than the Net. Yet to silence or curb them is unacceptable, as it limits the inherently free nature - and information flow - of the best sites on the Web. There is no simple solution to this intensifying problem, or anything like a consensus.
To complicate the issue further, the great majority of visitors to most websites - certainly this one - are lurkers, information foragers who want news and information but are loathe to censor anyone, and are unwilling or unable to challenge the small cadre of flamers who've seized control of public discussions.
All of which presents a series of increasingly complex choices for people designing and running websites as well as for those working and posting on them. (Though truthfully, it's pretty hard to take seriously a message that says in its entirety, "You suck.")
Many public websites try to modify hostility by requiring posters to join and identify themselves. People who write anonymously are far more likely to post ugly sentiments than people who identify themselves and therefore assume at least theoretically responsibility for what they've said.
On this site, however, anonymity is seen as a cherished right - the only way for all posters, especially for those working for companies or government agencies, to weigh in without fear of reprisal.
Nameless posters - here called Anonymous Cowards - are considered sources as well as equalizers. Barrier-free sites have the freest information flow of any on the Web, and they're sometimes the most informative and newsworthy. The tradeoff is that they're also the most hostile.
On some sites, vicious posts get removed and vicious posters eventually ejected. Some provide hosts to steer conversations.
Slashdot's response has been to deploy one of the most elaborate self-policing systems on the Internet, with members of the site encouraged to join the process, act as moderators and and trigger software that automatically removes the most offensive posts from the screens of people who don't want to see them. A new system to discourage excessive hostility in public discussions has been in place for six months now. Posts never get deleted, but some are removed from mainstream view.
Although the moderation system gives users choices about just how much verbal aggression they want to encounter, it hasn't really curbed the site's overall hostility, just given users more ways to avoid it. Moderating systems ultimately can't hold people responsible for what they say, and don't take into account that the hostility isn't a side-show for many people, but the point.
This moderating is sometimes called "steering" or "over-steering," part of a broad movement on the Net that allows sites and individual users to limit their own horizons. Sometimes this is a response to the sheer volume of information, sometimes an effort to screen out unwanted points of view.
While flamers keep their right to assault, individuals - entirely voluntarily - create personal insulated zones where they can block anything unplelasant, challenging or disturbing.
The dangers are obvious. One of the Net's most significant contributions is to bring all sorts of people together. But the growing "freedom from speech" movement is spawning communities in which people will find only opinions they already agree with.
But more restrictive approaches pose an obvious tradeoff: less information, fewer public posts, no protective or leveling role for the posters.
As one who posts regularly and is on the receiving end of positive as well as snarky feedback, I'd go with preserving anonymity over advancing civility, if those were the only options.
Fortunately, there are more.
Tomorrow: Breeding Creative Jerks
And please don't moderate this down if you don't like it! Reply with a logical list of reasons you don't like it instead.
Visit
Kooks on Usenet have been protesting for years that the email they get is overwhelmingly in favor of whatever halfwitted notion they're spouting today, and that the flames they've taken in public are not representative of all the supportive lurkers. They never seem to be able to substantiate the claim, either. The only thing new in this article is that you've managed to say the same thing in about 5000% more words.
Flamers... funny how you'll never meet one in person. They are oh so safe behind their keyboards, snug in the knowledge that that will not get a black eye for their efforts.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
However, I don't think its a problem. In fact, its probably the only thing that keeps the online communities from spiraling down into pure demagoguery. People who are not willing to take the heat for their opinions probably don't have opinions worth hearing. I post often (especially on religious topics) and have taken my share of ad hominem attacks and flame. I have survived, and don't see why others cannot do the same. I think flame has made me a better poster.
Gark, you say! What about freedom of speech? What about it? This isn't prior restraint -- and the only legal right to free speech you have (at least in the US) is that congress may not pass laws prohibiting it. I am so sick of people who think that the first amendment (which they've never read) grants them some magical right to say any kind of idiocy that crosses their mind with impunity.
Also, I would hardly say that flame is something new, or unique to the net. Ever read the arguments of the sophists?
-- Slashdot sucks.
Jon claims that the Net has been hostile from (nearly) its start. I disagree, for various values of the word hostile.
Maybe I sound like I long for the good old days of Netiquette (before 1994-1995), but I didn't get here until shortly before that point. Still, I look at places like comp.lang.perl.misc and realize that though there are heated debates, and though even the regulars and the experts have their mistakes corrected quickly and thoroughly, it's the soi disant experts, the nouveau intelligentsia who cause the most problems.
Consider the strange case of a new poster who jumps on the first question answered in the FAQ and gives an incomplete or incorrect answer. Certainly he intended to help, but evidence through the years has shown that the common practice in clpm is the best practice. He'll be corrected for that. Some people take it well ("Thanks for the information; I'm here to learn." and others take it poorly ("Why do you hate me? Why are you arrogant? I have a right to post to this 'web sight' [sic]!").
I don't mean to say that there aren't roving gangs of troublemakers who want to get a reaction however they can, but there's also a strong pull toward correcting misinformation. Perhaps some of the 'hostility' Jon detects is simply curt and terse corrections to his errors. (Of course, there are plenty of the former as well. Plenty indicating volume, not necessarily numbers.)
--
how to invest, a novice's guide
I'm sorry but as much as you may like to make it out that way Flaming someone is not 'Assault', it's comepletely non-harmful. There is no way you can hurt someone by writing them a nasty e-mail, or posting a nasty note about them to a message board. If I recieve an e-mail full of swearing and misspelled invectives I'm just going to delete it after the third or fourth word. I can easily ignore a post that I find offensive. There is NO WAY someone can force you to read a flame. In person someone can scream at you, make you listen to them by using physical force, but there is no way to do anything even REMOTELY like that on the 'net. It takes no 'courage' or 'strength' to stand up to flames, you just have to use one finger on the mouse to delete, skip, or otherwise ignore them. It's NOT HARD.
As for you getting more flames in the forum than in e-mail, how about asking all of your e-mail supporters to actually post to the threads? Maybe some of us would like to have meaningful discussions with them...
Or maybe we'd like to flame them.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Having a wonderful tool like the Internet opens the flood gates for communication for everyone, regardless of age, life experience, or education level. Ideas can be offered, traded and people have the oportunity to learn from one another.
Unfortunately the process makes it obvious to everyone we are a few common sequences of grunts away from sniffing each others butts for information.
We are not taught to communicate as children for the most part (children being better seen than heard), most of us feel alienated as adults, which is one of the resons we sought out people on to communicate with over the Internet in the first place.
We have a bunch of frustrated, alienated, people who are trying to express themselves in a "crowded room" senerio, where there are obviously a few cliques who run the place. So they start yelling and throwing temper-tantrums.
Well that is one possibility. I used to flame people because it made me feel macho.
-Little Sister
"The future masters of technology must be light-hearted and intelligent. The machine easily masters the grim and the
...why so many people expend the time and energy to post so many angry replies here every time Jon Katz does an article.
;)
I mean, you can turn Katz off completely if you wish, it's in the Preferences. You don't even have to know he exists!
But no, it seems that some folks on here would rather get rid of Katz completely, and deny him any right to post on Slashdot. I don't always agree with what he has to say, but I never get angry over it.
Perhaps some people are imbibing too much caffeine?
Don't throw your computer out the window, throw the Windows out of your computer!
Anybody check out John C. Dvorak's column last week? That was whining; he just used his column to strike back at the groups he perceived as picking on him. Katz's article may have incorporated a bit of whining, but it was a lot more thoughtful than Dvorak's. Katz talked more about the effects of flamage, and even considered the possibility that flames do serve a purpose. Above all, he tried to calm things down with his plea for civility, as opposed to fanning the flames like Dvorak.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
As one who posts regularly and is on the receiving end of positive as well as snarky feedback, I'd go with preserving anonymity over advancing civility, if those were the only options.
/. and comment on them. You've obviously got the language skills to do so. Jump in. I think you'll find that it can be even more rewarding then coming up with the perfect story in your basement. (On other conferencing systems, I've seen real reporters post, and respond, and the results were very rewarding for both sides.)
/.s structure avoids the worst flamewars. Not so much the moderations system as the short lifespan of the topics. It is hard to keep the grand-mal flame-fest going when everybody leaves the topic after two hours.
This statement caught me off-guard, because I've never actually seen a Jan Katz post. I've seen stories submitted by him, but I've never seen any other sort of commentary. I suspect that this is the true source of most of the flames that he gets. He doesn't appear as a member of this community. He appears as someone submitting stories from on-high, thinking himself too good to come join the common fray. (I'm not saying that is true. That is just the appearance.) I suspect that he'd get a lot less flack from people here if he were to do that.
Jon, why not post here, is response to people's comments? Better yet, read other stories on
Personally, I've found that it is possible, with practice, to avoid most flamewars. (Through painful experience, believe me.) It is mostly a matter of learning not to respond to trolls, learning how to use diplomacy in posting, and mostly, learning not to take it all too seriously.
And one thing always to remember: you will never "prove yourself right" to the point where everyone agrees. Don't bother trying. Once you've stated your case appropriately, it is counterproductive to say any more.
Just remembering that will avoid a lot of flaming.
I also think it interesting that this story is posted here as it seems to me that
The cake is a pie
Sometimes this is a response to the sheer volume of information, sometimes an effort to screen out unwanted points of view.
Jon, please remember that moderation serves two purposes: screening out junk and raising the profile of good posts. I've read a lot of really thoughtful posts that I would have missed were it not for up-moderation. Sometimes, someone makes a good point deeper within a thread than I would have dug on my own. Other times, when comments overflow my thresholds, I can at least get some idea of the discussion from the highly-rated posts.
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
It's been my experience that *geeks* tend to be very opinionated and combative people. However they typically choose to be intellectually (is that a word) and verbally combative instead of physically combative.
Geeks take things very personal when it comes to their intellect. If you cross some imaginary line with them then they see flaming as a perfectly "okay" response. The truth is that some of the times I've been flamed on usenet were the times I've learned the most. I don't really mind being flamed if your going to offer helpfull information as to why I'm a jerk. I'm willing to learn from anybody.
I think that the obvious thing to do is to not take anything personal when it comes from usenet or slashdot.
Now, why am I being so hard on Katz? There is one big reason: I don't want /. to slide further down the same path as Usenet. Slashdot is not and never was a free-for-all forum. It is editing in two ways: by Rob & Co. chosing what and what not to post, and by those arbitrarily chosen for moderatorial duties. Without effective editorial control, any forum rapidly sinks to the level of lowest common denominator. In some ways, slashdot has gone as far as is possible to counteract this tendency, with moderation and meta-moderation supplmenting the editorial team; only to throw these advantages away by promoting a vapid windbag as part of the team, effectively both writer and editor -- for who believes Katz's slashdot posts are subject to the same controls as ordinary contributions?
It used to be different. Slashdot was made up mainly of submitted stories: that is, slashdot readers were also slashdot columnists: a "story by RobLimo" or or CmdrTaco or whoever was normally a posting of something a /. reader had sent in, with the powers that were at slashdot functioning as editors of a kind. Now, it's different. Now, ironically, it is "old media" with a vengeance. Know-it-all journalists decide what slashdot will cover: setting the agenda, then graciously allowing the unwashed masses to comment on their wisdom -- though, never, you'll note, getting seriously involved in the discussion.
> saying something lame about my not controlling
> what he said.
The thing is, it's very easy to control what someone says, all you have to do, is make them think that they are saying it independently of you. A mailing list I spent a lot of time on, I could tailor my comments for specific people to get to say the things I wanted them to say, but they never realised it.
(Yes, the mailing list was a general no-fixed-topic type one)
Anytime that you communicate through a medium which permits one or more parties to seem as though they are not a human being, something akin to flaming will ensue.
Demonisation, dehumanisation and so forth are old tricks of orators and leaders. The net has simply facillitated this by not requiring the process leading up to the effect.
Anyone who has subscribed to a counter-cultural movement at any time in their youth -- and how many haven't -- will tell you that they're often treated poorly by their peers. Katz should be quite familiar with this, as he seems to write more than a few pieces that revolve around it. When someone is seen as being even subtly 'different' (difference, of course, being completely subjective) they will suffer more abuse. It will not generally come to the levels of our lovely Internet, but it will occur.
This is a facet of existance, not a phenomena of the Internet that needs to be altered. At the very least, the Internet gives everybody equal footing. There are few enough human beings here, and those that are have earned their stripes. Everybody started out the same, though: anonymously. Knowing a name and knowing a person are two completely different things.
Flaming has never managed to bother me. "U DIE FUCK!" hardly fits my perception of threatening. This may not be true for everybody. But then, nothing is. I'm certain that it's shocking for some. Ultimately, though, the Internet does comprise a distinct culture. Call it culture shock, if you will. My mother, who hooked up last year with a DSL package, has managed to adapt to flaming, pornography advertisements and 'Save my baby from the well' forwards. Like it or not, these are all a part of our community. They're those quirky cousins in the hills, bringing no menace with them but reminding us of those days during childhood when they terrified us with their shotguns and muddy breeches. Now, they've done their bit. They are repetitive. They are ever-dwindling shades of their original incarnation, and cannot possibly recover what they were. If you've seen one mindless flame, you've seen them all. And if that fancy lawyer uncle of yours from New York shivers in their shadow, he can pack his bags and get the next bus home.
The 'critical' flames are a bit different. I don't consider a strongly worded response to be a flame. Assuming it contains criticism, it should be addressed. A reply is not necessary, but one should read over what is contained within them. When something slips beyond the 'FUCK UD IE FUCK!' phase, and manages to expand into a pedantic rant regarding subordinate clauses, at least it informs me that my grammar has slipped.
Flames have been around since the dawn of man, when Grog laid the smack down on an albino. They are not unique to the internet, nor did they originate here. At one time, though, we should remember that these flames were kindled by those who held sway. The orations to decide power in Rome, the Crusades, the Inquisition and the Witch hunts all sprung up from personal motives shifted to dehumanisation. Once de-humanised, the mindless hatreds and actions were flames, no?
The internet is a mass of non-entities with the occasional cluster of human beings: the people you know. If anything, this sort of non-identity -- from which springs the incessant flaming -- is an advance, not a regression.
-l
Apologies for lack of clarity, I've no time to proof.
One thing the comes to mind while discussing the issue of violent remarks and flaming is that most violent and aggressive posters seem to be (although this is quite difficult to determine in alot of cases) male.
Of course this isn't suprising seen in the context of tech/geek culture which has been for sometime male dominated.
The online world ofers the protection and anonymity that you could say promotes anti social behaviour that would be frowned on or even outright dangerous in the real world.
Of course you could say the exact oposite (that anonymity promotes speach and sociability) and it would still be true.
The point here is that the violent outbursts online are mostly tell tale signs of the darker side of the male psyche and that the promotion of the endurance, ability and the highly focused/restricted skills of the geek coder in geek culture only help perpetuate the idea that unrecontructed masculinity is an acceptable social value.
-----
Of course hoping to explain in a few lines what history has spent centuries constructing is of course pure madness, but here I go anyway.
I used to have a sig but I left it on a bus
One would assume that if reading a Jon Katz article results in such venom, that the article itself has caused the flamer a good deal of personal pain. This is a situation I don't understand, as personally, I have never been insulted by a message or article that was not directed at me. I have seen uninformed, off-topic posts, but none of these feel like a personal attack against me.
But to some it does. So much so, it causes them to lash out in anger. No hostages taken, no feelings spared, it is the singular goal to return this pain and anguish to the one who caused it. Does this feel good? Frankly, I've participated in a flame war or two, and it just makes me feel empty. There is no reward, there is no catharsis, only futility.
I wonder why one would subject himself to such torment, especially in an environment where I can go to my preferences page, press a button, and never see another Jon Katz article again. Ever. Personally, I like Jon's writing, because I can see the value in stating the obvious when necessary, and more often than not, he puts words to thoughts I have had myself, that am grasping to understand. But I digress. Why would anyone choose to be tormented by Jon Katz? I can only think of two possibilities:
- The thrill of combat. It is clear that many people attack merely for the joy of battle. If you can craft your words into a weapon, and use them to strike out across the ether, it indicates your prowess with the langauge, your tool of battle. ``Look at how clever and cruel I am!''
- A sense of belonging. Let's face it. Hating Jon Katz does not make you stand out in a crowd. If you don't feel like part of the slashdot ``in crowd,'' because you don't like Linux or the GPL or something, it can be difficult. Especially if slashdot is your only connection to intellectual peers, to be separated by ideological differences is painful. I suspect that half or more of the anti-Katz camp really has no problem with Jon Katz at all! But by joining in the ``Please die'' bandwagon, they join a community whose only admission fee is a nastygram. Not bad, if you have a need to belong.
Now much of this might be bogus, and I will probably be flamed, too. I look forward to it, because constructive flames will help me continue to form my opinion on the matter, help me see parts of the argument I have ignored. I look forward to it, because destructive flames will make me laugh. Certainly it will not prevent me from posting again, as it will not prevent Mr. Katz.Jon, write on!
My Freakin Blog
Supporting flamers, in *any* constructive debate, is wrong.
/. could probably write a script that will flame for them. Rational beings, however, don't need that. They can state their positions in clear, concise language, and defend them in clear, concise language. Finally, they can admit that they are wrong at times.
Flamers are the conversation equivalent of terrorists. Rather than offer reasonable explanations of why they are right, or more often, rather than thinking about the statements presented in case they might be wrong, they simple resort to bombast, ad hominem attacks, or the insult direct. By doing so, they are simply trying to avoid any discussion that *might* impinge on some cherished belief.
If you resort to flames, you *lose*. You are showing that you are not mature enough to accept criticism, or your are not confident enough in your position to defend it. Instead, you whip out the "You suck, Microserf" and chuckle at the enormity of your own wit. Of course, everyone else watching knows that you are just another doltish member of the human race that can't be bothered to state disagreements in a conversational tone, and won't be bothered with defending them with facts and logic.
Anyone can flame someone. Most people who read
Think about it. If something somebody writes pisses you off, ask yourself "Why? Why do a few words on a computer screen anger me?" Then craft a reply. If the guy is wrong, prove it. "You SUCK!" is *not* proof. Futhermore, don't even resort to straw men. Simply state why the guy is wrong, give cites/proof, and walk away. If he flames back, you'll both know who lost.
If your lucky, that person will respond back in clear, lucid tones, and you can have a discussion. This betters both of you, and you might walk away from the computer that day a little wiser, and with one more person to count as a acquaintance, a colleague, or maybe even as a friend. That's the power of communication. That's the power of internetworking. It's another tool of interaction, and flamers want to control that. Don't let them. Don't play thier game. Just calmly state your position, and walk away.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
I am the flamer that Katz misquoted. I'm sure it was far too difficult for him to click on his "Deleted" folder and read it again for the sake of posting an exact quote. He'd rather just type what he thought he read. I like you even less now, Katz.
Katz wrote:
"You're not a Linux geek," he jeered. "It took you months just to install a Linux system."
I did not type that. What I did type is:
"Stop implying that you are a geek. You aren't nearly intelligent enough. You couldn't even build your own Linux box when given MONTHS to do so. You suck on every level. Please die."
This is reason enough for me to never read this asswipe's columns again. There was NO REASON to misquote me, aside from him trying to make himself sound better.
"It took you months just to install a Linux system.", he wrote.
That leaves the reader with the impression that he eventually figured it out, but that wasn't the case, was it Katz? The last I read you had someone else set it up for you.
Psssst. Dumbass. That doesn't count.
He has a hard copy of what was written. I wonder how many other columns contained misquotations due to his laziness or lack of commitment to accuracy.
You get worse by the article, Katz. What makes you think that a person who doesn't understand technology can be a competent writer in the technology field? It took me 9 hours to build my first Linux box. (It was Slackware for those that are curious.) I had not 1 minute of experience with Linux/UNIX before I began the project. Not only did I log in as root on this correctly configured alien OS in 9 hours, but I had it setup in a triple-boot configuration on a Windows NT/Win95 box and this was in 1997, long before they had idiot-proof boot managers.
I detest you now because you, as far as I can tell, purposely misquoted me. That is borderline criminal for a journalist.
You've gotten your wish. I will be ignoring your worthless columns from this point forward.
For those curious, the entire e-mail is posted below:
"If you post one more story about Columbine, I will first vomit, then never read Slashdot as long as I live.
You are such a weak writer it is pathetic. How many times can your lame ass milk the same fucking cow?
SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY
B. *immons
P.S. Stop implying that you are a geek. You aren't nearly intelligent enough. You couldn't even build your own Linux box when given MONTHS to do so. You suck on every level. Please die."
I will admit that it is harshly worded, but that is just my style. No matter how this article was worded it wouldn't have made any difference to Katzhole because here is a paraphrased version of his response:
(I deleted his e-mail or else I would post the exact quote. See how easy it is to be responsible, Katz? Drop me an e-mail and I'll explain what a paraphrase is used for.)
'I will keep writing about Columbine again and again and I will keep getting hundreds (or did he say thousands?) of responses to the articles.'
Katz doesn't seem to understand that if you write about a hot topic, Columbine for example, people are going to respond in droves, no matter who the author is.
Buzzword using, misquoting non-journalist. Yuck. Slashdot, lose this prick. There are other, better writers to be had.
Let the flames begin.
Talisman
"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
I -would- disagree with the idea that flaming is ever necessary or useful. Yes, it makes the other person stop and think. Unfortunately, it often makes the other person stop, think and take whatever useful contribution they could have made elsewhere.
IMHO, constructive critisism, suggestions, patience, tolerence and a good user-controlled filtering system are more effective and more valuable than any flame will ever be.
I've said some shitty stuff on the Internet, that I've come to regret. Did I regret it because I was flamed? No! That provoked an infinitely nastier response from me, and the whole thing would go in a vicious cycle, sometimes for weeks. No. I've regretted my behaviour, when I remembered that the person on the other side of the screen was a human being, like me, with feelings. Feelings I was busy trampling over, for no better reason than I was being an idiot.
Now, I'm not going to pretend that I'm "all better" and some kind of saint. I'm not. On the other hand, I've a decent karma (in the 400's), through writing how I feel, rather than directing any venom at people.
THAT is the key, I think. We all get angry, or upset, over all sorts of things. If you aim it at people, though, how different are you from the gunmen at Columbine? Sure, no-one gets killed, but they -CAN- and -DO- get emotionally hurt. Yes, even those too thick-skinned to admit it! You're shooting with words, sure, but the words inflict emotional injuries, every bit as real as a bullet will inflict a real one.
To make matters worse, what do you achieve by shooting the messenger? It doesn't change the message. It doesn't even change what you're upset about. All you have is the same mess you started off with, and one less person to solve it. Oh Whoopee! It must make people proud, to make things harder on themselves, like that! A Real Tough Guy. A Real He-Man, to not admit that the problem is never the person, to hide their head in the sand. And, yes, if you think I'm being a bit sarcastic, you're 100% right. It's what flamers need to hear and understand. I know, from bitter experience.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Suspicion and hostility of denizens to newbies does not prevent newbies from becoming oldhats; it instructs them in what is required of them if they want to be respected. Good flames are an important mechanism. Telling a poster that they're being an idiot, and why what they're doing is idiotic, is far more instructive than silence, or the white noise of a thousand random screaming "fuck you" at the same time. All flames--and all flamers--are not created equal. Generally one can tell within a post's first sentence or two whether its author is giving a thoughtful but critical reply, a hilariously satirical reply, or if they're just another disagreeable jackass. As with any other post, readers can quickly figure out whose flames to pay attention to and whose to ignore. A single, well crafted flame is far more useful--and far more entertaining to bystanders--than a dogpile.
Maybe if we thought of it as hazing--treating someone like garbage until they prove that they're worthy. It's harsh, perhaps, but it's also expedient, and ostracism is a good way to keep the fools and the bozos out. I come here to learn new, interesting stuff from people who make an effort at being responsible contributors, not to listen to every shrill crackpot who can type in a URL. If you don't have an opinion, or you're not qualified to give one, instead of posting, read. You don't have to post in every forum to become a good Netizen.
--
This is not my sandwich.
I disagree with Katz's assesment that the geek/nerd culture is more violent and provokes this type of behavior either online or in the real world. If you want to think about the real cause, look to our society and the way it builds expectations.
Ask yourself this, how many times have you felt the _only_ solution available to get satisfaction as a customer for X-mart was to pitch a fit until they give in? People are tired of feeling screwed by what they get.
Then ask why do I feel screwed by them? Is it because the product was really a POS or is it because they hyped it to the Nth degree and it couldn't possibly live up to that? Quite possibly the latter.
This happens in every aspect of my life. I grew up believing my parents that I needed a degree to get a decent job. Sure, the B.S. I have lends me some credibility but the degree was in Biology, not computers or Linux where my job is. Even high school gets hyped as the "best times of our lives" by parents trying to console their kids. The reality is the kid doesn't have much chance of a life because the school is so huge they can't give the kid the individual treatment he/she needs.
So the next time you feel frustrated at life and the "cards you've been delt" look at what you were expecting, why you expected it, and then decide if it is really worth getting so worked up over.
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
I used to post to comp.lang.perl.misc, but I got sooooooo friggin' tired to dealing with the recalcitrant flamers there that I gave up. If you gave a bit of advice to the shunned (i.e. a script kiddie or someone having problems with a Matt Wright CGI) you were pounced upon with venom unabated. If you retorted, you were killfiled. Now I know that such newsgroups are not necessarily help discussions, but if the answer is readily apparent, then why not shoot back some help? The party line is this: "If you help, then they will come back." This stance is anathema to good discussion, good didacticism, and good taste. It also dehumanizes the poster by telling them that their problem is not as important as a very, very dry discussion on the merits of derefencing arrays with backslashes or with interpolation. If I were to post this exact message in comp.lang.misc.perl or another elitist newsgroup I would be killfiled by the old hands and flamed mercilessly by others, and, even, put on automailers by the really nasty.( Don't deny it, I've seen you.) I once did a quick little script that pulled the weekly posts of every participant in the discussion on a few newsgroups and determined that given the number of posts by each person, the number of words on average in each post and the average rate of a modern typist, certain participants in the group had to spend at least three hours of their day posting to the group if they typed at a (conservative estimate) 35 words per minute. A lot of these replies comprised of: "RTFM" "perldoc -q" which is self-defeating, since people who are a bit ignorant of how perl works, for example, wouldn't know what this means. (Wait a minute, it's recursive. Just another example of why some of us need to come out of our holes.) "Get Lost, newbie" I'd fire them so quick their heads would spin. (BTW, this was written on break and the workplace, at least mine, is not a democracy). So if they were spending so much time posting to these groups, what was their motivation? To help? No, flamers amply display with their actions that help is not their motivation. To hurt? Yep, and a nasty pathology it is to practice this kind of hurt, because you must devote so much time to doing it. To get their ego stroked? More likely than any other reason. The end result: total silence, lack of free speech, lack of understanding, lack of caring. Let me say it for you *ploink*
But no, it seems that some folks on here would rather get rid of Katz completely, and deny him any right to post on Slashdot.
;), but I'm getting more than a little tired of this opinion being stated over and over. There IS a difference between kicking Katz off and simply not reading his posts, and it IS significant.
Let's be very clear on this, no one here has a "right to post". Any privileges are solely granted by the administrators of the site, and can be taken away at any time for any reason.
You want a reason why Katz should be removed? Sure, the regular readers of Slashdot can avoid reading him, but when people first come to the site, they see Katz along with everyone else, and it contributes to their opinion of the site. For a simple news site, Slashdot is one of the most visible and well-known facades of the Open Source/Geek/Unix/Whatever community. As such, its content is often associated with that community, if unfairly. Witness the articles on other "reputable" sites that, when doing an article on Slashdot, or mentioning it, almost always pick the most inane AC posts to quote from. Without Katz, there's less content to reflect poorly on the community.
Now, I personally don't necessarily advocate Katz being barred from Slashdot (I more advocate him censoring himself
--
Kevin Doherty
kdoherty+slashdot@jurai.net
Kevin Doherty
kdoherty+slashdot@jurai.net
Interesting that you bring up 'emoticons'. The most popular ones are :-) and :-( (and their varients) which have the fairly obvious happy/sad or "I'm just joking/kidding/teasing" and to a lesser extent, "I'm upset/disappointed". Maybe we need an "angry" emoticon that people can intersperse with their more civil words. How about _|_ (my extremely lame attempt at an 'upraised finger')
- Mike
Point taken; although it says who the post is by right at the top, so it's easy enough to skim on by. But the larger point remains. People who say "if you don't like it, don't read it" are missing the point. Slashdot is becoming Katzdot; that makes it no longer slashdot. The type of articles Katz specialises in attract a different type of audience than a site subtitled "News for nerds. Stuff that matters." Again, do a websearch like '+"Jon Katz" +"slashdot"' and see the sort of shit you come up with. For a lot of people, slashdot is Jon Katz. That is an apalling thought.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Fear of encountering a crazy person is fairly universal these days, and for the last eighty or a thousand years. I think that net.stalkers are simply an extension of an existing phenomenon. There are skills newbies must learn in order to protect themselves. There will always be predators and their most likely prey will always be the naïve. It makes me sad to see them coming to my neighborhood.
In the meantime, I think you and I are using kook to refer to two different things: you're talking about truly deranged, evil, hurtful people who also have net.access and can't leave their net.lives on the net; I on the other hand am talking about classic net.kooks, Serdar Argic types, that richly deserve all the ridicule and flames they can and do garner.
Cheers.
--
This is not my sandwich.
Well, on the subject of authors responding to comments on their own work:
There is a certain school of writing that considers discussing or defending one's own work in public to be crass. I write both fiction and technical material, and in the past I wrote role-playing games. (If Katz thinks this flaming is bad, he should see some RPG fans dissecting one's work! :)
Among these people, the rule in these situations is: read the comments, consider them, and use them to improve your own work. Never defend your work, because you'll eventually wind up at either: "You misread what I wrote," or "I disagree."
If they didn't understand you, you need to investigate your published writing and find your error. The point of writing is not to write so you can be understood; it is to write so you cannot be misunderstood. If they disagree, you can either choose rational discussion, or consider their arguments privately. Either way, flames don't enter into it.
Obviously, you can take this too far. Salman Rushdie needed to speak out when the Iranian theocracy declared a fatwah on him; but nobody has put a price on Katz's head, either.
The Net makes it easy to update documents. It might be that the old-school "publish it and let it stand on its own" standard is obsolete, and that living, constantly-updating articles will soon be considered the norm. This attitude will not die before then.
I'm not saying that Katz is of this school, but it's certainly possible. I know more than one professional writer who believes this. After attempting to publicly defend my own work, I believe it also.
Fortunately, unlike a paper mag, Slashdot has options to let you never see posts by a columnist. If he annoys you that much, set your preferences to hide him.
In the past week or so I have been enjoying watching my Karma bounce up and down like a yoyo. It started out with An interview with Bill Gates where I attempted to express my opinion of Commander Taco's statement with humor rather than flaming. After immediately being hit with -1,troll it bounced back to 4, Funny (picking up an Insightful along the way). The support it received after being marked down as a troll let me know that although one anonymous reviewer didn't like it, the support was there. Since then I've been marked down as overrated and (I still can't figure this one out) (Score:3, Redundant). Somehow 2 people bounced me up and then it was decided that I was being redundant...
And this, my friends, is hostility.
I'll never know why a post is moderated both ways. I can understand a post being moderated up or down but when both actions happen to the same post than I can only assume I've hit a nerve. The difference is the moderator is a person who is even more of an enigma than the AC. At least the AC has to choose his words. You can decide for yourself on the merits of the AC's statement by reading it. Does the AC bring up good points? Does he back up his argument with facts? Does he cause me to think? Or does he just call me a #@$% S.O.B.?
The moderator on the other hand is much harder to figure out. While I may not disagree with him (the one post was Overated), there's very little I can do to understand the actions involved. Many people seem to feel the same way about the articles they submit. "Why was article X chosen instead of mine?" We have no way to know, and our assumptions are not always kind.
What I find amazing is the number of posts challenging the "slashdot status quo" that are moderated up. Apparently it is now part of the status quo to challenge the status quo, a concept that strikes me as very unusual. Unfortunately a number of these moderated up posts are downright insulting. The recent Roblimo Attack Sequence proves that the flames can be sent back and forth and it proved the sucess and failure of moderation. The posts that were moderated up were those critical of the article. They were not posts that were critcal of Rob. However, Rob's response back was not subject to moderation, and things began to get out of hand. At that point addition text was added at the top and posts crital of Rob began to be moderated up. These posts were critical of Rob's reply and although they were not written as flames or insults, this was the first time they began to appear at the 3 level and above.
But there is something to think about here. Not only did someone put their name down and let forth a criticism, but someone else made that critisism more visable without having to own up to it. No where is this more obvious than in this very article. No AC here. (Score:5, Insightful) by paul.dunne is an example of an article that starts off in an insulting manner. It makes it's points, but it makes them in a style that agressive at best. It could easily receive a (-1, rude) if such a thing existed. However, it is no longer the action of a single individual, but it is now an assualt by four different individuals on Jon Katz himself. All four of these individuals have the option of simply not reading his articles. All have chosen to do so and then openly complain about the quality of them. Only one of them was willing and able to admit he did it publicly.
Moderation not only helps prevent hostility. It also helps cause it. When a person is rewarded for behaving in a hostile manner, it can only increase the desire to behave that way.
-----
No Zen is good zen
I don't hate Katz. I am, however, extremely frustrated by his lack of insight, which imho reflects upon the entire Slashdot community.
/. got you at least one fan, how about giving back? Anyone else? Please?)
I come to Slashdot almost every day. I started coming here when I became overwhelmingly frustrated by seeing conventional media outlets pander to the masses. I would read a newspaper and see a statement by a politician or marketing exec, then do the math and find that he was talking out of his ass; on Slashdot, this behavior is immediately corrected by hundreds of posts explaining in excruciating detail why such and such is blatantly incorrect. I like to read posts by people who know what they are talking about; I have a couple of dozen user pages bookmarked just so I can see what they think on exciting issues. Since I happen to know things about some issues, and have imho well defined, rational arguments to support most of my political and social philosophies, I therefore enjoy posting when I see the opportunity; I can identify with what Jon must feel, because I have had some searing AC replies which have hurt me deeply while at the same time enjoying a greater number of buoying emails. From the relatively few negative emails I have received, and the emotional trauma associated with those particulars, I can tell you that if I received the hundreds of negative replies that Katz has received, I would have moved on long ago. For this he has my utmost respect.
Jon Katz' hellmouth series was initially a major point of interest to me; I had seen both sides of the high school popularity wars and was profoundly moved by some of the insights revealed there. He immediately jumped out at me as a "deep thinker", someone whose ideas were good and therefore someone whose opinion mattered. I cared what he said. After the first hellmouth, I waited impatiently for more wisdom, because I crave insight. I wanted to read the words of someone I respected, expand them and argue against them to achieve a higher level of comprehension. Unfortunately, such gems were rare. Not non-existent, but sporadic and inadequate.
In the months since his first posts, I have become abjectly bored with his work. I have not seen anything which really made me think, nothing which makes me run to the library and delve into the wisdom of the ages, the way posts by amphigory or kintanon or fable2112 or countless others routinely do. I have to say that Katz has neither challenged my beliefs nor caused me to think in anything other than a cursory manner in at lest several months- and if this is true for other Slashdot users, who possibly come here for the same reasons as me, then that could explain a lot of the hostility. When a smart person is expecting stimulating conversation, and receives nothing but shallow blather, hostility is a natural result.
I think that a lot of the hostility currently reserved for Katz would be reduced if he were really as profound of a thinker as he presumes himself to be. If he were Karl Marx, Bertrand Russell or Ayn Rand, people would respond differently--because regardless of whether or they agreed with what he was saying, the content which would come with the posting would provide fertile grounds for argument. As it is, people read a 3000 word essay and come away with only one thought: "What did I waste my time with that for? I could have received equally eloquent commentary from the editorial staff of the small town newspaper." The lack of intellectual substance leads to ad hominem attacks against the author due to sheer exasperation.
I think Katz could be better. I know he has written good stuff; I think he just needs to take a little bit more time preparing his work, making it truly profound instead of the mass of tepidity it is today. If he does this, then I think his problems will solve themselves. That is, if Slashdot would just do away with AC posting...
I guess another solution would be for someone better to start posting to Slashdot; that way we could get our intellectual fixes somewhere else and Katz could be our Spice Girls, good for a few minutes of entertainment but nothing requiring deep reflection. (You listening, David Brin? I doubt it; after the way Slashdot treated you the last time you posted something I wouldn't listen to us either... Neal?
Rev. Nehemiah
... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be
where the eye of his telescope has already been
I was not aware Geekdom only applied to techies and programmers.
Thanks for clarifying that.
Also, please try and make you flames more creative in the future... in other words, much more entertaining. Instead of "You suck on all levels. Please die. (Uh-Oh, I misquoted you, are you going to run screaming and crying?) Try something akin to: I hope you choke to death on your momma's pubic hair. Going on in detail is great.... but always remember to insult their mother.
If the flames do not get more creative here, I am going to be forced to finally set my threshold to a 0 or 1. That goes to all you first posters also.
OK, i think it's a given that there's no way to get everyone to stop flaming. There are always going to be people that flame. There will always be people that have nothing to say but need to post something to get attention anyway. There will always be people without enough balls to tell you what they think to your face. There will always be people that will cut you off in traffic. Do I let it ruin my day? NO.
I understand Jon's point about how this causes people that DO have something to say to remain silent. But the fact is, no matter how hard you try, there will always be someone who's going to have a problem with you or what you have to say. It's something you have to learn how to deal with. Not everyone is going to feel comfortable posting in a public forum. Not everyone feels comfortable with speaking in front of a large group of people in RL either.
Anyone who is a public figure has to deal with this stuff. And anyone that deals with public. Have you ever worked at McDonalds, a grocery store, or tech support hotline? There are people everywhere that just can't deal with their emotions in a civilized manner. Get used to it!
If you can't deal with it, learn to deal with it. Learn to meditate, read the Tao Te Ching a couple times (it's short enough,) learn to laugh or feel pity--whatever suits you. Don't take yourself too seriously, and don't take your detractors too seriously. And of course, if you burn easily, it's important to understand the importance of wearing sunscreen.
numb
I did not find Katz' article to be shameless self-promotion. Quite the contrary, I was reading an article about the hostile nature of the Net, a nature proven to any reasonable POV by this thread alone. After all, you've not asked that Katz improve. You've pointed out that he doesn't seem to join the forums on Slashdot (A point neither of us can confirm beyond doubt, as Katz could be posting anonymously in some threads. I don't read all of the stories on /., and I doubt you do either. For this argument, however, I'll concede that if Katz does post, he doesn't do it under his own name). But even though you "invited" him to enter into these discussions, it's clear from your tone that doing so will gain him nothing. It's not what Katz is saying that you don't like; you don't like him, and you want him to go away. That's hostile, period. And it's common on the Internet to have hostility in discussion threads.
That's the point I got from Katz article. I saw the comments he made regarding those who post negatively. I took those to be anecdotal evidence for his point, and personal experiences as such evidence is considered to be an excellent way to make such points. You'd learn that in any public speaking or argumentation class.
Believe nothing, not even if I say it, if it violates your sense of reason -- Buddha
I have to agree with a number of posters here. Since my first days of trolling about BBSs back home in rural Georgia I have seen the flame wars rage. From the first time I hit the Usenet I have seen and received a mulitude of flames.
I remember back in I think 1989 when I posted the wrong author for a book in a Usenet discussion. I was roasted alive with comments insulting my lineage, intelligence and questioning the very need for my existence. I am sorry to say that this is not a constructive way to hold a conversation or get along in a larger community.
Correcting a person is one thing, insulting them is senseless and stupid. This is one part of internet traditions I do not fathom to this day. I have participated in a flame war I did not start but meant to finish and it was a stupid mistake. It is better to ignore it than provoke it. I know now. I only hope that as the online community evolves that we might become more civil among ourselves. It probably will not happen but one can hope.
ACK
Maybe you need to get out more. Attend a public meeting of your community's residents whenever there is a contentious issue: a proposal from a developer to build 1200 square foot townhomes in the middle of 3000 square foot single family homes, a proposal to plop a Home Depot big box store next to a residential area, a proposal to raise taxes, whatever. You will see all the flaming you could want, and it won't be anonymous, it won't be restrained by any sense of civility, and the imprecations against the life and health of opponents will be as vicious as any on the web. And, no, the majority of the folks won't be like this, but the majority on the web aren't either. And these flamers won't be kids. You'll see any age/gender/race/size you can imagine. The Real World: still the source of everything on the web!
_X_ lame.
___ stupid.
_X_ much longer than any worthwhile thought of which you may be capable.
Your attention is drawn to the fact that:
___ what you posted/said has been done before.
___ your post was a pathetic imitation of ______________________.___ your post referred to the newsgroup as a Board, BBoard, BBS, or list.
___ your post contained commercial advertising.
___ your post contained numerous spelling errors.
___ your post contained multiple grammatical errors.
___ YOUR POST CONTAINED EXCESSIVE CAPITALIZATION AND/OR PUNCTUATION!!!!!
___ your post was an obvious forgery. _X_ you have a lame login name.
___ your machine has a stupid name.
___ you quoted an article/letter in followup and added no new text.
___ you quoted an article/letter in followup and only added ___ lines of text.
___ you quoted an article in followup and only added the line "Me, too!!!"
___ you flamed someone who has been around far longer than you.
___ you flamed someone who is far more intelligent and witty than you.
___ your lines are 80 columns wide or wider.
___ your
___ You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of alt.best.of.internet.
P.S. This is a form flame. You can get it here_X_ You have greatly misunderstood the purpose of the net.
_X_ You are a loser.
___ You must have spent your entire life in a Skinner box to be this clueless.
_X_ This has been pointed out to you before.
_X_ It is recommended that you:
No matter if you're beaten up by bullies in high school, if you're left out of any sports you care to practice, if you can't get a date to the prom: in the world of computers you're the master. Recently not only you're the master but you get reconginition and lots of people coming to you for help. You may even get a well paying job years before all those bullies even think about earning their own money, and that feels good. Until very recently, the expertise and command of technical things that was required to access the net was a limiting factor and put geeks in contact with other geeks in a worldwide fashion. It gave us a head start in building the communities, filosophy and rules by which the internet functions.
Then the possibility of getting online with just a few clicks allowed anyone, no matter how stupid (from the point of view of teenage geeks), to "intrude" in our own world. Now not only we are excluded from most social events in real life, the same people want to take over our own private world!
Of course when geeks grow older, and I'm a 34 yo geek, we learn to deal with those issues and end up adjusting; we learn to use whatever capabilities we have in a useful way and we simply outgrow the need to be accepted in some circles - we learn that we usually are well accepted in the circles that really matter.
But can you blame a teen geek, who is probably feeling left out, who gets humiliated every other day, from defending violently his/her perceived territory from people who are trying to turn it into just another instance of the real world?
I think it's very understandable why teen (and immature) geeks behave like this, but it's also sad. It means geeks are using their superior knowledge to beat those weaker than him/her, just like bullies use their superior physical strength to beat those weaker then them.
On the Internet, the geeks are the bullies! My advice to geeks: be honest and think about this or you'll turn into what you despise. My advice to everyone else: think about this next time you abuse a geek. It's just human nature, after all.
I dunno, it seems to me we more need a "I'm not as angry as I may sound" emoticon, than one to make it more clear that we're pissed off.
That's true, I thought of that after I posted my message. There are a few "sticking your tongue out" emoticons in use, but I don't usually use those, because my momma told me it's rude to stick your tongue out at people (I generally don't flip people off either, or say "You suck totally. Please die." in email messages).
- Mike
I criticise Katz for two reasons: one, I believe is is a bad writer; two, I believe he is bad for slashdot. As I said in another post, I'd rather /. didn't become ZDnet, with professional hacks spouting off on all and sundry, and a tawdry little comments section tacked on underneath each article for us plebs. I'm not here as a writer: I'm here as a Linux user, because once upon a time /. was the place to be for anyone interested in Linux.
One point I haven't seen made yet is that email, newsgroups, and other on-line venues are a very different sort of communication compared to face to face verbal communication on the one hand and reviewed, edited written publications on the other hand. Online writing is conversational in tone and content, without the nuanced cues and feedback found in direct human interactions, and without the editorial filtering. This removes a whole lot of restraints and conventions that help keep us civil.
The other factor is that its harder to type than it is to talk. (doh) I'm a very fast typist, but its still hard for my fingers to keep up with my thoughts. So I find myself using overly emphatic or exaggerated prose and grammar to try and get my points across. The net effect is that written conversations tend to suffer from over saturated emotional content -- flamage.
The barrenness of online speech and the difficulty of transcribing conversational speach to written word make flaming an easy way out. It takes time and effort to master the skills and self-discipline needed to communicate effectively in this media. Unfortunately this means that in open forums such as this, we have to endure boorish flamers. And the regrettable fact that discussions happen in an extremely short time frame makes it harder to take the time to hone your words or to reflect on them before posting.
In my product support work I did not have the option of ignoring the flamers. But engaging the flamers with civil, on-topic, constructive, and informative replies I typically caught them off-guard -- often leading to public apologies and retractions. In cases where the flaming persisted, or was beyond my tolerance threshold, replying directly to the flamer was often more effective than public retorts. So my advice would be:
(Note: I am not a therapist or psychiatrist, although I own a couple of books by Freud & have used prescription drugs.)
/. lack a representation from this group; how many of us decided to mess with computers & gadgets because dealing with people was too often a no-win situation. (I know that describes me.)
Looking this article, & recalling a couple of articles he's written in the past, Katz has a style that could be interpreted as speaking ex cathedra (although I believe he's trying to be thoughtful).
On the other hand, there are a lot of people with self-esteem issues, & I doubt the people who post to
Katz, I believe, pushes these people's buttons without knowing it, & they lash out. Or use Katz as a target to strike out at, rather than the other irritants in their life.
In other words, Katz represents the authority figures they believe are messing up the flamer's lives, & telling him ``You suck" or ``Please die" is their contribution towards fighting against oppression.
Then again, given enough people any comment -- no matter how inoffensive (e.g., ``I like to go into the mountains & smell the air & watch the trees") -- will result with someone finding cause to start a flame war.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
"All over the Net, communities confront the same choice: freedom or civility.
Let he who dare speak within this forum called internet look after his own defense. For in this land we are all sovereign. The roses herein bear thorns and the daffodils have bees, and we will not be his gardener. The stings and slights that come his way are for him to ward off as best he can. But if he deigns to replace our liberties with his mode of gentility, he will find us a ruthless enemy that will brook no king above us.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I run a bunch of political sites and I'm accustomed to the fact that lone flamers are always going to be with us. If someone is abusive enough for a long period of time I'll block their IP but for the most part the community on an active board really deals with flamers in their own way (usually by ignoring them).
The real difficulty I've noticed is when you have two or three people flaming as a group with the clear intention of making a board unusable. I had a situation on one board recently where four or five people came on and began announcing the formation of their own group, which had nothing at all to do with the board topic, and then had post after post of their group's planned activities, a little stage internecine feud, etc. The damage was much worse than just a single angry person.
A board like Slashdot is so popular that they can afford to keep the Anonymous Coward option, but for smaller boards blocking some people and requiring non-anonymous membership are the only way to prevent such nonsense.
That's not really a reason. This is just a cleverly disguised "Katz sucks."
Katz's critics seem to feel mysteriously exempt from explaining why he sucks, implying that it should be obvious to anyone else as cool as they are. What little substance they offer is highly subjective: "he rambles," "his topics aren't news for nerds," "he's not part of the community." Notice that Katz critics love to talk about the Slashdot Community as if it were clearly defined -- which is isn't.
Truth be told, Slashdot is a cornucopia of "content [that] reflect[s] poorly on the community." AC's posting inane crap. Luminaries posting inane crap. Slashdot staff post bullshit rumors and then end up immediately retracting them. Coverage of Microsoft and Java will typically be smug and negative. Coverage of the Amiga, Linux and Perl will be fawning and uncritical.
All of this would thoroughly discredit a standard news site, but Slashdot has a different model. Rob and Jeff merely regulate the amount of content -- the "community" (posters, moderators) act as the filter. In a way, if the Slashdot staff is guilty on anything, it's not doing too little filtering, it's doing too much. (Of course, maybe Slashdot is supposed to be a site where only the best nuggets of information are posted -- in that case, it's failing miserably.)
Dorothy Parker was a wonderful critic and flamer. An example of her criticism can be found here.
The world is full of idiots, and more than a few have discovered the Internet. Some are so confident in their idiocy that it is difficult to resist that little voice that murmurs "pull".
Dear Jon,
;-)
Why do so many (mainstream) people have such difficulty understanding the 'net and the way it works? It's not just you. It is so very simple and obvious to those of us that grew up in it and built it. Why is the 'net useful? What is it's real and true value? What is it about the 'net that makes want to use it? All these questions, and the question "Why are there flames?" have the same answer. Are you stumped?
Here's the answer:
The 'net provides a free flow of reliable information. It is honest.
It is not Politically Correct. Rather it is Simply Correct.
Realize the 'net would be useless if all the data that flowed through it carried the same "colors" as the data that comes across "mainstream media". There is no need for civility because there is no immediate threat due to physical presence. There is no need for manners, nor any need to defer to someone of larger physical stature simply because they (any potential threat) are not there (within reach).
How many times have you spoken derogatory comments about someone "under your breath"? How many times have you cursed someone who cut you off in the middle of the road? On the 'net, you don't express yourself "under your breath". Your comments, thoughts and reactions are all out there in the open for everyone to see if you choose to place them there and if they choose to read them. Here, you get to curse that idiot driver and have a certain confidence that he will hear your words. Surprise! You are not as well loved as you thought. Surprise! Your supposedly well thought out belief systems turn out to be rather "holy" after all; and here is someone in your face that in no uncertain terms, is calling you a lazy idiot for not thinking things through.
Some of us like it, relish it, learn and grow from from it.
Wouldn't it be nice if you could really, truly, honestly, tell your wife "No honey, that dress makes you look fat"? Then she could take that honest objective datum and use it to improve herself, or she could simply modify her opinion of you as a reliable data source.
This happens all the time on the 'net for people that can really and truly use it. You have to be able to think, learn, CHANGE YOURSELF and your opinions of others before any discussion is really going to do you any good. Too many people in this world grow up without these abilities. Too many discussions are carried/acted out in the "real world" where there is actually nothing gained because all of the participants are fearful of offending others or in some fashion disrupting the discussion. Tell me, what good is a discussion that disturbs nothing? What's the point?
>There are good arguments in support of flaming. Flamers can deflate the
>pompous, correct the inaccurate, educate the ignorant, level the
>communications playing field.
The problem being there are so many people who are accustomed to simply having their way. It does not matter whether or not they can think, follow simple directions, or simply learn anything. These poor fools are the most frequent victims of flames and in my opinion, rightly so. For all too long our society has tolerated ignorance, idiocy, and simple laziness for various vague reasons like "fairness", "niceness" and so on. Now the tables have been turned. If you don't have your facts straight, someone will straighten them out for you and let everyone else know that you and your screwy ideas are worthless. If you don't have the ability to defend yourself, too bad. The ones that do think, do learn, do research will skewer you every time.
Once again, this is a good thing. It stops the pollution of true, useful information by the ill informed. It exposes and ridicules faulty concepts that are presented in the mainstream everyday as if they were viable and if you don't value that, go watch FOX for the rest of your life. At least you'll be happy there.
If you don't have the ability to think about what has been said, absorb new ideas and adjust your opinions based on the wealth of information that is available you can of course stay out of the fray, or off the 'net entirely and be left behind.
>Worse, the ferocity of the environment discourages all but the most
>confident or determined posters.
Indeed it does! This is Yet Another Good Thing. How often have you read erroneous reports or seen broadcasts that are so far out in left field that you are left wondering how the reporter/editor got/keeps the job? An erroneous reporter/speaker doesn't get away with that on the 'net. If you are not at least reasonably sure of yourself and where you stand in regard of any particular topic, what in the world are you doing talking about it as if you do know the subject thoroughly? The point is, you, yes YOU, can meet and learn from an expert on ANY subject at any time. So don't expect to be regarded as an expert when you hop into a forum and start talking, unless you are CONFIDENT that you know the subject. Of course, if you jump in and are found to ignorant while speaking as an authority, expect to be flamed. There would be a lot more well educated people in the world if this behavior was practiced face to face. There would be a lot fewer "offended" of various ethnic, racial, or whatever your pet peeve types if this behavior could be practiced face to face. Simply because they would have learned to either put up, back up, hold up, or in whatever way defend their ideas and positions or be told to shut up and listen until they have something worthwhile to say. So many people think that they know what "it is all about". They think they are the so important. They think they are "hot stuff", "top dog" or whatever. In reality, most of them simply don't think very well at all. In my opinion, it's high time someone showed them the error of their ways.
>Flaming, like skateboarding, seems overwhelmingly an adolescent form of
>recreation.
Hardly, skillful flames are sometimes difficult to perceive. Well formed sentences, solid logic, a foundation of fact and skillful selection of words can produce a beautiful dart that often will not be perceived as such by the target. They are always educational for the interested and alert third party and often are for both the flamer and flamed as well. They are also something that very few adolescents can produce.
>Whole segments of the human population - women, the elderly, those who
>speak foreign languages, newcomers, children - are excluded from the
>conversation or choose to avoid it.
I have yet to see anyone excluded from a public, unmoderated, discussion until after they have already made fools of themselves or in some fashion rendered themselves as incompetent, ignorant, or in some way unreliable sources of information. Even then, the exclusion is generally made on an individual basis. It is a personal choice.
>Some are too vulnerable too join in
So be it, this is not a problem. There are activities of all types that are simply not available for some because they don't have what it takes. This is simply another. Fortunately, it is founded on that most fundamental of human features, the power and capability of thought.
>many are tough enough but they don't see much reason to bother.
Indeed, this is true of many activities such as one of my favorites, mountain climbing. I choose not to participate because I have a child to feed, a wife to maintain, etc. In other words, it is not worth it anymore. If some people decide that the insight and knowledge that is available on the 'net is not worth the trouble, that's OK, that's their decision. They can live with it and so can I. On the other hand, if you want to pollute or destroy what I consider a reliable and valuable information source just so that it is easier for the timid to use, then you will find yourself isolated.
You see, the 'net does not work like conventional channels. If you come along and mess up my space, I can move and my discussion can move right around you. If you or the gov tries to censor or moderate one discussion, I'll move on and start another. Try to tax or filter email, and the 'net will develop another method of moving data that is outside the legislation almost overnight. You can't influence the 'net with PAC money, advertisements, or whatever external force you wish to apply. By it's very nature it will simply slip from your grip if you attempt to squeeze. Finally, the people get to speak. You can speak
or not. It's your choice. Just be prepeared to be treated as people really and truly perceive you.
>So flamers discourage free speech, prey on the weak and dominate discussion.
No, they discourage idiocy and ignorance. They certainly do prey on and dominate the weak which is of course the proper, natural thing for the strong to do. It does not require legislation or regulation. It is not nice or fair, or civil,
but it is reality. The solution, which of course should be obvious, is not to whine about it, or in some fashion weaken the strong, rather it is to make the weak stronger.
This is one of MY pet peeves. Whining about problems that some people have does not improve anything. Putting shackles on the strong does not help the weak. The only way to truly improve the whole is to strengthen the weak or eliminate them.
This is the one feature of the 'net which will have the most influence on the populace in the long run. Of course it is also the one feature that all of pundits from the "classical media" have overlooked. For the first time since something like the printing press, a new form of data transportation has arrived. There will be no reliance upon the "classic media" as data conduits. YOU will be able to hear first hand from someone and converse with someone who was there and directly involved in whatever it is that interests you. YOU will be able to leave class and check out whatever it is that the prof was preaching and form your own conclusions. YOU will be able to test those conclusions not only against your classmates and your prof, but against the experts from around the world.
Myth after myth will slowly be dispelled as more and more people are exposed to rational thought processes, logic, and real data rather than the output of "filters".
The world is going to be a better place Jon, and it won't be because the strong have been handicapped. Instead, the 'net will either strengthen the weak or it will kill them. I intend to survive and grow stronger. For your kids' sake, I recommend that you do the same.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Thank you for posting a copy of, and link to, this flamethrower! I saw it once before, when I'd earned it (it was my first semester at Berkeley -- I was young and foolish) by doing a:
_X_ you quoted an article in followup and only added the line "Me, too!!!"
(though, in my defense, it was on a small (~0.5 dozen person) mailing list, and in response to a question about when/where to meet, or some such). Anyway, I foolishly deleted it, and have been kicking myself ever since. I've wanted a copy to use myself, but not badly enough to actually ask the guy who hit me with it in the first place for another.
This is an absolutely great tool, aside from being hilariously funny to "us grown-ups":
*For someone who "should know better", but slips, it makes for a powerful, but not really wounding, admonishment.
*For "newbies", its formulaic nature, as much as its actual content, can help convey the concept that there is a real tradition and etiquette to these things and that this is a response to a real breach of that etiquette, rather than just off-the-cuff flamage. Often, just getting this concept through their skulls is harder, and more important, than teaching them all the details.
*In fact, this would be a good document to show to "newbies" pre-emptively -- not flaminng them, but showing it to them (in person) and explaining that it is a list of grievances that the old-timers frequently have against newcomers, in hopes that they'll get a sense of why these things are bad.
Maybe it should even be displayed prominently among the various FAQs, introductory messages, etc., perhaps even being displayed as a warning when you create a Slashdot account.
On the other hand, it is pretty long, (it fits under the comment length limit, but it still takes a lot of vertical space), and I hope we don't start seeing it posted here too frequently as it could become a major bandwidth-killer.
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
Okay Paul, let's get back to normal.
I can't follow you. Why someone shouldn't post about himself? I agree that the stories are choosen by the slashdot team. That might not be the best sollution, that's not a secret. But what IS the best solution? Do you got any propositions?
I think you are very rude against Katz. Rude for no reason. /. is a very open forum and anyone with an good idea can post something and get's heard. Aparantly you try to make /. better by ranting (aka flaming), I don't see how this could work IMNHO.
I haven't been around
And now, Why I Don't Hate Jon Katz:
He's the reason I found
At least early on, Katz articles were what kept me here. I don't always agree with what he has to say, but since I am NOT a "computer science geek", I'm more likely to be able to post to the threads that spin off of his articles, and actually have something worthwhile to say, than to many of the others.
I'm not a computer expert. I play one at work, on occasion -- people in my department will call me (the pseudo-technical writer who's really being more of a secretary right now) with computer problems because I get there faster than the real tech support, who work in another building in another part of the city. I'm a highly competent end-user of just about anything that gets thrown at me. I am in NO way a programmer. I wrote a few things in LOGO and BASIC as a kid, and took a single Pascal course from an incompetent professor, and that's as far as I ever went.
For me (and for the others out there like me), I think Katz provides an important bridge between typical
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
Another bogus argument. You could turn him off in preferences and you won't have any of his articles pushing others off the page. AFAIK, other articles aren't rejected because Katz has an article coming out. That's absurd. As far as preventing worthwhile comments to other articles -- what's your reasoning there? Are they too busy flaming? Then perhaps they should forgo that and just post the good content to the other article. We all have free will and choice in what we read. If you don't like Katz, don't read it. Or post a flame. But to say that somehow Katz is messing up other articles is just absurd.
The other thing I wanted to say is that I loved your story about the guy on the BBS, and many of your other excellent points. If only more people in society -- not just on the Internet -- heard from people like you, instead of the wishy-washy, I-feel-your-pain types who dominate the media most people seem to worship.
Oh, and finally: I've known people with the last name of Patti (mainly, a teacher at my high school) and men with names pronounced Jackie (including Jackie(sp?) Smith, who famously dropped a potential touchdown pass from Roger Staubach in a Dallas Cowboys' losing effort against the Pittsburgh Steelers in one of the two Super Bowl games they played in the '70s). Even so, I might well make the mistake of assuming your nick suggested femalinity. ;-)
Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
IIRC, the law defines assault as making a threat upon someone, and does not necessarily involve physical harm. Battery does. I would have to disagree with you.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
And you have +1 karma? Just shows how worthless it is. Resit Reading Comprehension 101 as a matter of urgency. (In case you don't get it, you clearly didn't understand what I wrote; please try harder next time).