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."
Inevitable as humanity continues to grow and expand. It's not a cause but a symptom of overpopulation.
....And this is different to real life how?
Hate and racism exists, has always existed, and will always exist.
As much as I hate racism, I don't think that trying to legislate people's beliefs is the answer.
Sure, don't let them act on their beliefs, but if they want to say things, why shouldn't they?
The TOS says they can't.
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.
nah, i think it's _great_ that people set up these sites.
they are identifying themselves to the world and to the intelligence services "come and get me, we're dumb enough to tell you who we are and dumb enough to _write down_ what we _really_ think".
Unless you are talking about a huge community (such as /.) I can't see why a handful of mods and the ability to IP ban clients from within your CMS couldn't do the trick. It seems to work on most of the community sites I participate in. If you have a particularly unruly bunch trying to ruin it for everyone, then some aggressive mods are in order. Go over to the NetStumbler Forums if you want to see a prime example of moderators who simply do not take ANY shit from ANYone.
Hey, everyones saying...
"oh i saw them on blogs", "i saw them on site x, y and z"....
No ones noticed that we have this ALL the time on slashdot? How do we fix it? We leave a warning for all, and then we ignore it. Simple as pie.
The fact is racistism, and all *ism's will NEVER go away, but this doesn't mean that you can't choose to not care about them. These people have nothing better to do with their lifes, pity them, they are the ones that become nothing.
Slashdot, would be totally, totally ruined (far worse than people claim it is) if people took any notice of the trolls, but the whole fact that we DONT means they dont get anywhere.
People are racist in the streets, some people do it without even thinking about it, and would never do it if they realised they were. It happens, why can't humanity get over it?
Because humanity, wishes to be pefect, when people finally accept that we ARE a flawed race, then we might finally start bonding together.
Someone said "its from the cause of overpopulation". Nope, your wrong... Its from people creating value of other people. Its from people having something, someone else wants. No person really hated someone else for the colour of their skin, they hated them for some other reason, yet people are stupid and they look for hte easilest flaw to blame, which in most cases is the fact that someone has differently coloured skin.
I ware glasses, and people used to use this as a method of getting to me, it was actually the fact that i did damn well in school, even when i had only 50%~ attendance, and they were jelious. Yet the only way they could get at me, would be making jokes about my glasses. They couldn't cope when i made jokes about my glasses too, when i would turn around and use them as an aerial for the radio which wouldn't work. It would confuse them to have someone putting them selfs down.
Im not saying that anyone should go "Hey look, im black, i might as well set my self on fire" or anything stupid like this. This isn't the point, the point is there is many underlying issues, which causes this hatrid, most of the time, the person effected cannot change this either, as they mostly didn't cause the problem in the first place. So they have to look on and say "What can i do? Nothing.... so i ignore it".
it might anger them to see someone writing these things, but its not like they could ever change this person, so why waste time worrying about it. It wont change the world, it wont stop kids bullying others over stupid little things like this.
Ignore it, it might not go away, but at least then it wont effect you?
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
When all other technology is moving to isolate us into our own cozy little worlds, you are surprised?
:)
Blogs give you the news you already agree with. IM has only your buddies. Cellphones let you walk around the world talking to people you already know, avoiding all new people. I could go on.
Cozy isn't it. Problem is, now noone has ANY need for real social skills, personality, or the ability to deal with different views.
Why in my day, we telnet'd into a BBS and met people from all over the world! "Chatrooms" (read: bot nests) only come in local and special interest these days.
At least here on Slashdot all us geeks are safe in our dupe friendly Microsoft unfriendly world
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Yeah, but most gardeners will take time to pluck out the weeds - just to use another metaphor.
It's called 'moderation' - if someone is a dick, remove the post. The owner does have that right.
Why would anyone want to become member of a small randomly put together community by invitations? What do they discuss? Won't the discussions get more feedback in more open communities? Is it because they feel the added privacy makes it easier to reveal private information? But then you need to trust all Orkut members, and many will have been invited by persons you don't even know.
:-)
Hmm, it just feels like a community for people who wish to be "cool" to me, but regardless how I look at it, I always end up as seeing it as a useless idea?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
We never found an adequate defence against it.
I run a popular forum, and I find that picking the right moderators to keep the board clean of filth is not an easy task. Once you find the right folks to help moderate, it's all cake from there.
christians, muslims, hindus, buddhists, etc. also have "free will" (your definition). they choose their religion and can change it any time they desire. but in many countries, these religions may be banned/illegal.
but i guess it's not "discrimination" or "hatred". thanks for clearing that up for us all. because religion is a choice, it's not discrimination or hatred.
and while you're on the subject of biblical quotations, Leviticus 25:44 says I may own slaves. Exodus 35:2 states anyone who works on the sabbath must be put to death. you can't cherry pick and choose what parts of the bible you'll follow and which parts you'll ignore.
Here is a post from an insider giving some of his oppinions about what's going on:
http://media.orkut.com/articles/0100.html
So wait.. Google starts some sort of forum/chat site based on invitation (like gmail), everyone wants in, and now, on the Internet, the have discovered people being racist? So what? this happens on the Internet! just because the site is a friends network doesn't mean you're not going to get this sort of thing - most people in the world are friends of friends of friends etc. If Google doesn't like it they can just kick these people like every other forum, whats the big deal?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
someone who cites the bible to legitimate hate and intolerance is a braindead dimwit. period.
its pseudo-religious FUD.
You don't get it. No one chooses to be black or hispanic so it is ALWAYS stupid to even kindly suggest that they shouldn't be black or hispanic (or white, for that matter). On the other hand, when we talk about a chosen life style, it MAY be hatred and discrimination and often is, but it is also POSSIBLE to have an intelligent discussion. Your straw man argument is suggesting that I think that NO critic of life style (even violent) can be bad, while I didn't say anything like that, and even explicitly stated that I am always against any violence (as was Jesus Christ, FYI). Example: when I say: don't you think that maybe it is not that great that you are black? This is racism, no matter how kindly would I ask. When I say: I hate you because you are gay, this is hatred, no matter that towards a life style. On the other hand, when I ask: do you know that what you do is explained as a sin in the Bible? Would you like me to help you understand it and avoid it in the future? This is not hatred. Your mistake is a false dillema between nothing or all, a black-and-white fallacy. But I'll better shut up now because apparently Slashdot people don't want to have any kind of serious discussion on more important topics than which database is faster this week and I will get rated as "Troll" again. Good day.
For years now, the intellectual elite of this world have labored mightily to stamp out all superficial signs of racism, sexism, gayism, and other isms, by banning "insensitive" speech and images, in an effort to sweep the natural human impulse to hate under the rug.
Repellent as Mr. Pazzo and his intellectually deformed ilk are, the undeniable fact is the internet itself --that is, the human connectivity it brings about -- facilitates their unpleasant behavior, as what were formerly isolated kooks find courage, companionship and new ideas through "virtual communities" on sites like Orkut, as they have in the past through other forms of communication such as BBS's and Usenet.
Abolition of such groups seems impractical withour the imposition of barriers to entry as would defeat the whole purpose of virtual communities.
Like other socially detrimental practices such as downloading music, taking drugs, and practicing illict sex, hatred, like it or not, serves a vital purpose to a not insubstantial number of people. The repressed have returned, more disgusting than ever, much to the chagrin of our minions of political correctness, and there is no easy solution in sight.
Until the gods tire of idiocy and invent a race with greater souls than our own, it seems for the time being we will simply have to thicken our skins and put up with these unpleasant reminders dark side of humanity
The International Herald Tribune is an opinion site.
Rarely do you see a news story posted without them injecting their opinion. If, by blind luck the IHT manages to forget to inject their own opinion, they will quote any of dozens of "expert" college professors that also agree with their views. Any opposing views are left out.
I'd put the IHT up there with Salon.com and the Guardian.
"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.
"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?"
""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.
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?"
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?
"Who knowing the judgment of God,"
Knowing the unknowable, hm? So much for Christian humility...
"Is it really "discrimination" or "hatred" if I dare to save them from the hell fire by telling them that what they do is wrong?"
Do they want to be "saved?" According to other major religions, Jesus was a prophet at best and a false Messiah at worst, and these people complete with their own divine set of quotations to back up their assertions. Would you willingly allow others to attempt to "save" you from your own Christianity?
If the opinions of non-Christians don't do anything for you, what about other sects of Christianity? When was the last time you invited into your home a Jehovah's Witness or even a Mormon who appeared on your doorstep and let them go the whole nine yards in their attempt to "save" you, listening politely and never trying to argue?
"I am not discriminating, I am against violence."
Because if the death is "on their hands" (as prescribed by Leviticus), it's not really violence? Oh, and there it seems God is telling you to be violent when it comes to homosexuals, so aren't you going against His Will by falling back on such principles and squeamishness? The Bible tells you that you'd better be prepared to do what God tells you to do despite your personal desires: if he says "Kill your son," the only proper response is "With what weapon?" So are you really as Christian as you claim to be when you are willfully ignoring that part of scripture where you believe He Himself tells you to kill somebody?
"I only want to educate people."
As a Christian, shouldn't you be balancing your wants and desires against theirs?
" I only talk to people, write to people, write articles. Is that really wrong?"
That depends: are you talking with, talking to or talking at these people?
"Is education really the same as the crimes of holocaust? Do we really have to compare education to hatred for Jews?"
Well, many Soviets were sent to the gulags for the cause of "education," so yes, it can be.
Actually, in a way, the concept of orkut ist facist in itself. Creating artifical borders were there are none. I remeber running into orkut when it was just anounced. After reading what it all was about it came across to me as a very unsympathetic concept of a web community. Very much the kind you find in religious sects or, extremer, in facist communities. Artificially bordering a group of people and in unison with that, blurring the individuals in to one big group. We, the "orkuts", are something special.
I personally react extremely allergic to stuff like that, due to personal experiences with latent synthetic elitism in the past. Weak personalities (which racists and facists usually are) much easier see orkut as their chance to feel special for no true reason whatsoever.
Bottom line:
Orkuts basic concept actually is an emotional and spiritual groundwork for facisim and thus flawed. Google would be best of shutting it down or dropping the concept of 'invitation only'.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
How the hell the parent insightful?
Basically he's saying the goverment should prosecute people for their beliefs.
How fucking 'insightful' is that?
What the hell, I edited the mistakes in that post on a preview, resubmitted, and it posted the OLD VERSION with the mistakes in it?!? Dammit. Here we go again:
People will find some characteristic other than race to single out and harass people. E.g. they'll single out fat people, or skinny people, or smart people, or whatever. They already do, just look at any classroom in which everyone is white.
Have you ever noticed though that the people who do this, i.e. harass other people based on some arbitrary characteristic, are invariably useless people .. i.e. they are usually people who have nothing special about them, no special skills, and are not able to contribute anything useful to the world. These "nazi types" are usually from the low classes in society. I think the reason these people tend to cluster in groups around a hate-based ideology is because it gives them some kind of magic "free ticket" to feeling "special", without having to do anything other than be a certain race or look a certain way. It's like the ideology calls to them by saying something like this: "Hey, nothing special about you, never achieved anything? Well we say that just being (race XYZ) makes you special by default, because (race XYZ) is superior, and (race XYZ) achieved all sorts of things." So someone with nothing special about them now feels they have something to be proud of, something that makes them special/superior to others, and they feel that they "belong" to something.
Look at class bullies, most of them are losers who are going nowhere in life. By picking out and alienating someone else who is smart or whatever, they get to feel better about themselves. Going further, a more subtle example is television: Most sitcoms have an extremely dumb or nerdy character ... the idea is to make a character that is so dumb or nerdy, that even your dumbest/nerdiest viewer gets to feel better about themselves by being able to say to themselves "ha, look at that guy, he's so stuuupid, ha ha". Because nobody wants to be the stupidest or nerdiest person in a group. So the sitcom creators lower the bar so much that all viewers are raised above it. The idea is to make a show so stupid that the viewers feel better about themselves, it's a cheap feel-good manipulation trick that usually works. It's the same thing with racist groups - when you belong to such a group, you feel better about yourself because you define/depict another group as being inferior, even if you've never accomplished anything in your life. Don't know how a TV works? Who cares, you can say stuff like "we invented TVs". Don't know how a car works? Who cares, you can say stuff like "we invented cars". As if saying "we" somehow makes you part of some "group" that supposedly invented TVs/cars, which is obviously not quite correct.
Moderation. If I don't feel something is on-topic, and especially if it's spam (of course if it's spam), I delete the comment. Sometimes I edit it for grammar and spelling. I have never censored a post for it being crude or lewd, though I've never had to (and probably never will). The point is: it is MY website and I will do with it what I want to. Even if it becomes a giant mammoth like Slashdot (never will).
Defusing mean jokes is great, but you were lucky. The jokes would have hurt more if you had been beat up or had the glasses grabbed and stomped.
Does happen and that is the problem with hate talk.
An echo chamber would form quickly.
The majority that agreed with each other would soon eliminate the minority of opposing views. Soon each person would begin to express more and more of a biased perspective as they saw no opinions other than their own. Anyone with a divergent opinion that joined would soon either be acclimated into the overall group mind or be modded down until they stopped posting.
Soon the overall level of rhetoric in the forum would lead it participants to stage a bloody riot of cannibalism and bestiality. The souls of the damned would escape from their doom and take refuge in the recently slain. Zombies would quickly devour what is left of the living and the forces of darkness would rule over the world forever.
Of course... Some argue that this has already happened and nobody noticed. Well I'm off to eat breakfast. Mmmm... Brain Flakes!!
(This post actually started off serious, but then either went horribly wrong or horribly right depending on your perspective of things)
As a Latino, I find it funny that only Anglos gets scorn for racism, but the second a Black or Asian does it, no one says a peep. Want proof? Just look at most Black sitcoms or films, there's almost always a pointed anti-White tone to it all. Jokes that get directed towards Whites would garner instant outrage if the situation were reversed.
Until ALL racial groups get equal scorn for commiting racism, I seriously could care less about racism right now.
Point it, there are a lot of Black hate groups out there, yet we never hear anyone speak up against them. Why?
Look at the history of interference with peacable assembly for a clue as to why the Founders put this clause as the first of the rights they considered most likely for the government to usurp from the people.
Yes you read that right... the Bill of Rights is not an enumeration of the rights guaranteed to the people by the government -- but an enumeration of the rights that the people possess by "the laws of nature and nature's god" in the order most likely to be usruped by government.
Moreover, what this means is that the Bill of Rights is a declaration of natural rights meaning that if any government violates them that government cannot be considered consistent with the laws of nature.
This is an "extremist" stand. Indeed, any stand of integrity means adhering to the principles stated in the face even of death. That is the essence of "extremism". Can you think why powerful people might consider any integrity exhibited by those without power as "extremist" and seek to have "extremism" suppressed through social, cultural, legal, economic, police and any other means necessary?
Indeed, when weaseling courts mockingly refer to "the penumbra of the Constitution" what they are in fact saying is that the government is like the light of the Sun itself and the people's rights are like the shadow of the moon on the earth during a total eclipse of the sun -- absolute only at a single point.
Well, if there is a single point to the Constitution, it is reflected in the first paragraph of the document forming the foundation for the creation of the Constitution:
It is clearly stated:
The whole point of freedom, the single point made by the whole of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the original Bill of Rights, is recognition of the primordial freedom to choose those with whom one will associate.
Seastead this.
Sheesh, solved a cultural problem that had injured an killed countless. How about, beat up on the weak, then steal their property? Maybe opportunistic sociopaths using ignorance to rabble rouse? There are many reasons, all bad, all wrong, all pathetic.
The founder of that group, Kiarash Poursaleh, who described himself in his profile as an 18-year-old living in Tehran, also listed "Mein Kampf" by Hitler as a favorite book...
You know, I'm more worried about the rise of organized groups, such as the German NPD or the Russian democratic party. Gentlemen such as Mr. Poursaleh somehow, deep down, seem to missing a somewhat fundamental point about how the people whose policies he's advocating might view his own particular ethnic group.
Crackpot pseudoscientific about racial biology and what defines "aryan", as a sometime student of history I'm not aware of Mr. Hilter & his merry gang of pirates ever planning to set up an division of Persian SS stormtroopers...
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
Unless you are talking about a huge community (such as /.) I can't see why a handful of mods and the ability to IP ban clients from within your CMS couldn't do the trick. It seems to work on most of the community sites I participate in. If you have a particularly unruly bunch trying to ruin it for everyone, then some aggressive mods are in order.
This isn't a particularly novel solution (or problem, for that matter -- it's the problem of anarchy), and in 15 years I've never seen it work over the long term. Aggressive mods == dead forum within months. This was even true in the BBS days.
Trolling can be a problem, but aggressive moderation is an even worse one. The once free forum necessarily becomes an expression of the moderators' personal visions. Since there are no objective criteria for trolling, it all comes down to the whim and ego of the moderator. And this is usually a recipe for disaster. I've seen - many times - moderators cracking down in the wake of a troll attack, only to drive more people away from the forums than the trolls themselves ever could have accomplished. And occasionally, IP banning will only egg the trolls on, causing them to use proxy after proxy to get 'revenge' for the bans. When the aggressive mods inevitably begin banning the proxies, and entire ISP domains, it's the beginning of the end.
Of course, there are some who will argue for the effectiveness of this system in removing trolls, just as some might argue for Fascism as an effective means of removing terrorists. But if you have to kill the community to get at the trolls, have you accomplished anything in the end?
Slashdot's quasi-democratic mod/user-end filter system is the best solution I've come across ever. It isn't perfect, but it's worlds better than turning your forum into a despotic monarchy.
Because there is one Slashdot community; but thousands of Orkuts. You choose which to belong to. So for instance, what kind of people would you find in the "All niggers/faggots/Arabs/Catholics/etc. must die" group? Not a normal cross-section of society who might moderate the views expressed.
Actually, I don't see there is a need to censor these groups at all. They exist, the views expressed are repugnant; but they are not broadcast and are accessible only to the invited members of that group. Obviously law enforcement can infiltrate them to see if they're planning anythng in the real world.
Trolling isn't power. It's the sign of a kid holed up in a basement since he's gotten his butt kicked ten too many times for being unable to keep his sociopathic mouth shut. You think it's cute. Everyone else on the planet thinks it's a maladjusted waste of time. That you find it to be high entertainment says much more about you than your "audience".
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Again, RTFA. Nobody says Google has to do this or that; quite the opposite. Google is one of the parties telling people what to do - namely, to honour the TOS they agreed to.
The other party who's telling people what to do is the Brazilian police (and, thus, the Brazilian government), and as long as they're regulating what Brazilian people are allowed to do, it certainly is within their rights to do so.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Keep in mind that "hate and racism" is covered by the first amendment, no matter how tasteless. These people have a right to what they're doing and thinking.
I worry that this recent witch hunt trend against racist movements will supercede the country's recognition of the Constitution.
These people have a right to their thoughts and ideas as long as they aren't harming others, killing, assaulting, etc.
If you want to properly combat these people, you are going to have to listen to their concerns. I believe that they have legitimate concerns that are skewed by blanket ideology and a fascination with nazism and ephemera. Shunning them only makes them stronger.
Diversity counselors are well-versed in this, as they're always lecturing us about this shit, but seem unwilling when the tables are turned.
Shouldn't this be a "Your Rights Online" post?
In direct contrast with Google's rock-solid reliability, Orkut works for me approximately 1 in 10 times that I try to use it. And by "works for me" I mean just the most simplistic, basic functions like returning a page instead of a server error. They've had this problem for months, and it only seems to be getting worse.
Why people are using this service and not some of the alternatives, I have no idea. Were I google, I'd jettison it quickly before it more seriously erodes my brand.
Are you insane, or just provincial?
Look, in countries with real ethnic tensions---Yugoslavia, Iraq---a large proportion of the people will, every so often, get up and kill their neighbors, who've lived next to them for centuries.
In America, once a group of funny-speaking immigrants (Bosnians, Irish, whatever) has been here for two generations or so, they're just as white as everyone else. Our remnant bigotry comes from the notion of race, which is sort of like "ethnicity for dummies", as it depends on being able to identify someone from fifty paces.
And I should point out that we have racial tensions in big cities which are thickly developed, and which are frequently (Los Angeles) terribly segregated. Note that Los Angeles was the site of the most recent significant civil unrest in America.
America may have bigotry, but we do not have bigotry like they have in other places. It's more dumbed-down. How predictable.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
You know, trolling is really disruptive for serious discussions and erosive to real communities. Yes, partially this is the fault of people who allow themselves to be trolled, or who are unable to recognize a troll for whatever reason and take it seriously.
But provoking this out of boredom, lack of self-esteem or whatever, is not only rude, it's fucking destructive. It's like shitting on someone's table and grinning at his disgust.
Also, it's drastic abuse of Free Speech. Moderation (=censorship, in a way) wouldn't be neccessary, were it not for provocateurs like you. Go and look in the mirror, and consider that the person you see there is hurting people and communities, and is damaging basic human rights. Are you happy with yourself now?
Don't whistle while you're pissing.
You can pretend that these thoughts don't exist all you want. But they do exist. And you, like everyone else, have them.
Speak for yourself. I've noticed that many racists try to justify their hatred by claiming that everyone feels the same way. I suppose people just want to feel "normal" and not the exception. Well, let me tell you something: You are the exception. Racism is a learned behavior and you are a part of an increasingly small minority of indoctrinated people.
Your "science" is also horribly flawed. Here are a choice quote from the AAA:
Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions.
After all, I am strangely colored.
While I think that to a certain extent you have a point, I also think it's pretty silly for you to imagine you know what every other person thinks.
I'm sure there are in fact a number of people out there who are to some extent racist and hide their true feelings because those feelings aren't popular. There is likely a whole spectrum of racist attitudes from very minor to very extreme. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that there aren't ANY people who truly aren't racist.
Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions