Slashdot Mirror
Hatemongering Becoming A Problem On Orkut
jaquesparrow writes "Orkut is a well known beta experiment, an invite only environment based on social networks. Recently it has been reported that hate and racism is proliferating on Orkut. Besides the story in the Wilmington Star, the International Herald Tribune also has commentary on the situation." From the article: "For Google, the trouble on Orkut - which is still in beta, or test, form - could easily escalate. A prosecutor in Brazil, where the service is especially popular, has already initiated an investigation into some of the more virulent Orkut sites."
RTFA. Many of the offending users aren't from the USA (which is not a surprise considering the majority of Orkut users in general aren't), and many countries outside the USA (Brazil, many European countries and so on) *do* have legislation against hate speech.
Furthermore, as was already pointed out, it's also a violation of the TOS, so even in cases where there's no crime being committed, people are still abusing the service.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Maybe there isn't a technological solution. It's up to each member not to feed the arguments. By not feeding the arguments, I mean a single member shouldn't try replying repeatedly to a thread that's going out of control. One reply is enough, and if someone doesn't listen, that's it.
As a long time internet troll I couldn't agree more. I don't troll because I like to write (I do like to write but that's not enough). I troll because I love to read responses. And that's pretty much all. No responses, no fun. Real trolling is all about reading, not writing. For example I might write a pro-creationism post to observe the heated reaction of atheist nuts. Next day I would write an anti-religion post to observe the reaction of religious nuts. It's all about a balance and subtlety to attract the right kind of nuts because readng their texts is interesting, especially if they do exactly what you want them to do. Trolling is power. Aristotle new it and I know it. Reading idiotic texts of people who think they are smart (be them Jesus lovers who don't know the bible or MySQL funboys who don't know the relational model) is amusing. It really is.
I was running BBS's in the 80s.
There is always a few clowns who like to post crap - they get real tough safe in their rooms. I call it 'modem machismo'.
The way to handle this is to hammer the offensive message immediately. No need to kick the guy, unless he is incorrigible.
Works for flame wars too. (Which must be discouraged immediately)
It's a little like being the bouncer in a bar. How long do you think the bouncer would tolerate a punch up?
Mumia Abu-Jamal is *laughably guilty*. Check the evidence.
That doesn't always work however. I run a fairly use forum that has had it's fair share of trouble. Some people are just intent on destorying and being moderated heavily just gets them the attention they want. Esp. the "there is no freedom of speech" or "Your all Nazi's" becomes a so called argument when trolls are prevented from trolling. Which of course is bull. But it can create a very unhealty atmosphere. I've known some trolls to continue returning for more then a year. They can get a bit of a personal agenda. The right mixture of banning and harsh -but fair- moderation mixed with just letting some people walk the line more then you would want them to walk seems to work better. Especially for those trolls to continue to ban-doge and seem to thrive on being banned. You don't want to create an atmosphere where among a small group of people it becomes a mark of pride to be banned. Because sadly people like that exist. Otherwise a nice conformation that your own life isn't as boring and bland as theirs must be. But overall, they are a pest that even harsh moderation doesn't work agains't.
Some things I know about moderating conversations in virtual space .
Suggestions include:
The rest of the list is also quite good, including a comment onI don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
Alright - screw my karma - I'm disgusted by the sheer level of anti-religious groupthink that occurs on this web site, and also by the tactics that are used to suppress religious views.
"OK, hatred for Jews is stupid (after all, even Jesus was a Jew)"
And so it's OK for Muslims, who don't view Jesus as a Messiah, to be antisemetic? Nice logic: by it, you're allowed to hate people you're not forced to relate with.
Hey I have a great idea - how about arguing against what he said and not words you decide to put in his mouth. For instance, stealing from people is wrong, but stealing from your parents is plain stupid - you are likely to be hurt in the process. By saying that I do not imply that it is OK to steal from someone because "you are not related to them." You don't like what this guy is saying, how about not putting words in his mouth?
"Gays, on the other hand, have free will and they do what they choose to do."
It's really simple: if one could choose one's sexual orientation, then a heterosexual man could choose to be gay. Since you're the one making the assertion, I have to ask you: Have you ever tried being gay? Or are you so unwilling to try to tread a mile in the shoes of those who you would "save?"
I'm sure he wants to save criminals too - does that mean he should try doing things he feels are wrong (i.e. violating his conscience) just to gain a better understanding? That's insane!
""If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13."
So God didn't have room on those stone tablets to jot down "Don't be gay" on Mount Sinai? Pretty interesting that Ol' Infallible Himself was able to include relatively minor things like "take a day off every week" and "put up with your parents" but seemed to think that an outright capital offense wasn't worth mentioning.
I think you'll find out that things like rape and incest (things we feel are bad still today in modern society) were also offenses of similar magnitude - do you really think a list of 10 things can meaningfully cover all possible "really bad" actions?
And Jesus was crucified before he was able to do his key "Don't be gay" sermon? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless what you want to have done unto you is... hey, where are these Romans taking me?"
The vast majority of Jesus's sermons did not focus on what not to do but on having the correct heart attitude. Once again, he didn't say "don't rape people" but yet that's still an important part of the religion (and society). I don't know why he felt it was unnecessary to say this (or that those recording it did not record it) but perhaps people of the time already knew that was wrong?The new testiment, however, does contain several warnings against homosexuality.
You, as a Christian, have the trinity itself, not to mention the list of prophets, all telling you how to live your life properly and all, none of which really got around to the all-important "Don't be gay" commandment, and so you're giving a collection of these insane Biblical footnotes the same weight, especially when said footnote seems to fly in the face of one of the Ten Commandments?
I do not understand how this illogic gets modded up. You have created a false dichotomy - Ten Commandments vs Stuff Not In The Ten Commandments. Maybe the Ten Commandments are just the Ten most important - notice there is no dietary law etc - yet many Jews to this day still observe it.
"Who knowing the judgment of God,"
Knowing the unknowable, hm? So much for Christian humility...
The *ENTIRE* message of Christianity is that it is possible to have a direct, personal connection of God - through the revelation provided in the Bible, and through personal prayer. Whether that's true or not, who's
Hate Messages on Google Site Draw Concern.
Linux at home
So there is no objective good and evil?
So murdering random people in your apartment building is just as "good" as helping an old lady cross the street?
Racism is just as good as tolerance?
Dictatorship is just as good as Democracy?
No wonder so many "progressive" people nowadays have no problem aligning themselves with the anti-women, anti-free-speech, anti-tolerance, islamic fascists.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Its the same reason people focus on men being sexist towards women, or straight people being homophobic towards gays as opposed to the reverse.
Its not a level playing field and until it is these ism's just aren't equal. Just like its incorrect to assume that sexism and racism are the same, you can't assume that white racism and black racism cause the same amount of damage. The group with power is the one with the responsibility.
Its like that tired racist arguement "How come there are all black fraternities, but if we had an all white fraternity people would call us racist?". I hate it when people (particularly white people) say that they don't think about race... its because they (we) don't fucking have to. You don't need a white fraternity because chances are you live in a predominately white neighborhood, your group of friends are all white and so are your coworkers.