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.
no one takes the time to stop and smell the Orkuts?
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
....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?
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.
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".
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.
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/
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!
Here is a post from an insider giving some of his oppinions about what's going on:
http://media.orkut.com/articles/0100.html
hmmm. lets see now...
...you are going to go up to a large group of angry bigots protesting about something [lack of manufacturing jobs/muslim terrorists/women bosses] and you *expect* them to back you up on your rights to tell them that they are dumbasses?
1. I admire your conviction
2. I agree with you totally
3. I hope you have medical insurance.
(unfortunately, in this case there is no *profit*)
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
someone who cites the bible to legitimate hate and intolerance is a braindead dimwit. period.
its pseudo-religious FUD.
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Hate Messages on Google Site Draw Concern.
Linux at home
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 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.
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