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."
I used to run a website (ThoughtCafe) for writers where they could give feedback on each others work. I had to close it down in the end because a small minority wrecked it for everybody. It seems most "community" websites suffer from the same issue - the possiblity of one "rogue" person to pose as several personalities within the website - basically in order to start an argument with themselves in order to draw others in, and then feed the argument. We never found an adequate defence against it.
Jonathan Beckett http://www.pluggedout.com
As I understand it from the article, these hate mongering forums on Orkut are invitation only private thingies where people express their private hate mongering expressions to their fellow hate mongers. What exactly is the problem here?
Now if they were to barge in on other forums and express those opinions, it could be considered harassment, and that really is a problem, and probably also illegal is your country, but as far as I know expressing unpleasant opinions in private is considered legal.
With all the GNAA posts, the randomness and what not if it would be possible to impliment something like a futures market for comments. Where moderation could be done in terms of each user being allowed to carry a limited portfolio of say 10 to 20 comments at any one time with either buy or sell style settings. Then letting a market determine which is good and bad, the writers of the comments would get "points" based on the market consensus as would the people who got in early, where the people who got out late would lose points. If people went bankrupt they'd have to be interesting. Those with positive points would have them carry over some period perhaps quarterly, and the points them selves could be used like raffle entries for a modest Thinkgeek prize budget. The people who maintained the site would be able to perform an SEC like function, (blah blah censorship), and undo/kill abuse as it arises. I think such a system, which would have to be good at killing bots, would be extremely hard to game. While much that a buys site would rather not have would still be present, it'd be confined to the relative obscurity where those who are into it can wallow in it. Not unlike alt.nuke.the-USA and the like.
somethingawful.com actually has a great method of controlling this:
1. It's free to browse the forums.
2. If you wanna post/reply - it'll cost you $10
3. Custom Titles & avatars -- another $10
4. If you make a "shit post" (among which blatant racism i.e. "post pictures of black people eating cliche' foods") or even single-word posts will automatically result in your message thread being "gassed" and your account being banned -- resulting in YOU having to pay another $10.
These groups are formed and peopled by people who share an extremist viewpoint. In normal society, extremists are moderated by contact with people who aren't extremists. In a society like Orkut, extremists come into contact with more and more people who share the same view. This could potentially cause them to become even more extreme in their views or even spur them to action.
This is the problem. It's not really about free speech and censorship; it's about what happens when you have a social system which encourages extremism, instead of one which works to moderate behaviour.
Anyway, it seems to me like a successful version of what Orkut should be. I use it almost religiously and it works well because the majority of users are actually rather close to each other (few hours by train at the most in most cases) so we can actually meet in real life. My list of friends is a little small (32 at the moment) but I have met all but 3 of those people IRL. Of those three, one lives in the US, one lives in Hokkkaido (I'm in Tokyo) and the other...well, timing just hasn't worked out yet.
Anyway, the point of my post is that in some cases, these "small randomly put together communities" work quite well and can be an excellent supplement to IRL (note: I did NOT say replacement). I've gotten some good snowboarding buddies, some good music buddies, some good photography buddies, etc. Hell, I even met a really attractive girl that will hopefully be my next girlfriend (2 months without getting any is starting to drive me crazy...broke up last december ;_; )
So, these sites can work. I think Orkut's problem is that it is just too big and unfocused.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Although the model of Orkut depends on everyone being a real person (and an adult as well), release from jail seems to occur automatically even for fake accounts.
If you punish users for moderation rather than encourage it as /. does, and if you tolerate bogus identities in a social networking system (i.e. many miscreants don't get kicked out, as it does not really matter if they play by the same rules as everyone else), it becomes too easy for malicious participants to keep their hate speech visible on equal footing with honest, real people, while hiding behind forged profiles that are no better than anonymous avatars.
Actually, some apparent "fake users" have been allowed to exist for long enough on Orkut to see "fan" or "hate" communities being set up for "themselves".
In other words, on ./ and in real life (or even Usenet for that matter), the simple rule is this:
Whether you are using your true name or not, if you choose to be a troll, expect no better than to be treated as a troll.
On Orkut, everyone is expected to use their true identity and stand by their opinions, but because none of this is sufficiently well enforced, trolls have surprisingly little to fear.
There is no better way to undermine the moral standards in a community than allowing this to happen.
You know, I've recently begun to think of trolling as more than just trying to get a rise out of people. The truly successful trolls get people to betray their principles. This is why they're so often found in places like this, where folks have hoity-toity principles just waiting to be popped.
Klerck was a successful troll, even though all he did was crapflood with that stupid "page widening" stuff. But it was because of him that the lameness filter was added.
The Wikipedia article on the GNAA (which mentions the structural changes the GNAA made to Slashdot by their trolling) has been put up for deletion more than any other article. If the article is deleted, they "win" by making Wikipedia betray its principles. If the article stays, they "win" by being advertised on Wikipedia.
At least, that's what trolling seems like to me. As a troll, what's your take?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca