Slashdot Mirror
The Inevitable Death of the Internet Troll
HughPickens.com writes James Swearingen writes at The Atlantic that the Internet can be a mean, hateful, and frightening place — especially for young women but human behavior and the limits placed on it by both law and society can change. In a Pew Research Center survey of 2,849 Internet users, one out of every four women between 18 years old and 24 years old reports having been stalked or sexually harassed online. "Like banner ads and spam bots, online harassment is still routinely treated as part of the landscape of being online," writes Swearingen adding that "we are in the early days of online harassment being taken as a serious problem, and not simply a quirk of online life." Law professor Danielle Citron draws a parallel between how sexual harassment was treated in the workplace decades ago and our current standard. "Think about in the 1960s and 1970s, what we said to women in the workplace," says Citron. "'This is just flirting.' That a sexually hostile environment was just a perk for men to enjoy, it's just what the environment is like. If you don't like it, leave and get a new job." It took years of activism, court cases, and Title VII protection to change that. "Here we are today, and sexual harassment in the workplace is not normal," said Citron. "Our norms and how we understand it are different now."
According to Swearingen, the likely solution to internet trolls will be a combination of things. The expansion of laws like the one currently on the books in California, which expands what constitutes online harassment, could help put the pressure on harassers. The upcoming Supreme Court case, Elonis v. The United States, looks to test the limits of free speech versus threatening comments on Facebook. "Can a combination of legal action, market pressure, and societal taboo work together to curb harassment?" asks Swearingen. "Too many people do too much online for things to stay the way they are."
According to Swearingen, the likely solution to internet trolls will be a combination of things. The expansion of laws like the one currently on the books in California, which expands what constitutes online harassment, could help put the pressure on harassers. The upcoming Supreme Court case, Elonis v. The United States, looks to test the limits of free speech versus threatening comments on Facebook. "Can a combination of legal action, market pressure, and societal taboo work together to curb harassment?" asks Swearingen. "Too many people do too much online for things to stay the way they are."
Oh no, not this topic again... Trolls don't care about their tragets' gender. They just want the most harm for the least effort. Women generally are the ones who get offended and emotional about this stuff, and therefore are much easier and more exciting targrta. Men just ignore it or fight back. As they say, the easiest way to make someone stop bullying you is to ignore it and not be offended or bothered (or at least not show it). Either thay, or swing back if the situation calls for it. The bully will move on to someone weaker and raiser to get a rise out of.
On the Internet, nobody knows you are a dog. So how dog harassment numbers look like? Probably the same.
According to PA's Greater Internet Fuckward Theory (GIFT), it is gender-neutral and widespread. It is unfortunate, but that is the only way it could exists and still allow unauthenticated participation. To me, this unauthenticated quality that allows anonymity is a lot more valuable than eliminating GIFT asshatery.
Lets censor and police the internet not because of bomb and drugmaking tutorials and terrorism forums.
Lets do it because someone might insult females online.
Every single person that have spent any extended time online in an environment where you communicate anonymously with strangers have been insulted, harassed and so on. It happens because you eventually end up in a competitive situation(games or arguments).
But of course when xXxPonyWarrior2002xXx calls me a 'shit-eathing motherfucking fag-whore' and wishes me death from cancer and fire simultaneously it's friendly banter between two men. But when he calls GamurGrrl99 a slut it's suddenly a confirmation that all men are misgyonistic pigs and that we can't have such a thing as a free internet anymore because it's full of heartless trolls.
Another generalization to the fucking word troll! Awesome!
STALKING IS NOT TROLLING. IT IS STALKING.
HARASSMENT IS NOT TROLLING. IT IS HARASSMENT
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS NOT TROLLING. IT IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT.
CREATING FRAUDELENT INFORMATION TO DEFAME SOMEONE IS STILL DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. AND FRAUD.
Stop trying to shut down the people who decided your fucking house in minecraft should look like a penis to you can make fucking anti troll laws. What's next? Anti not being nice and forgiving me to laws? Fuck you.
Next time someone does a smear campaign online and follows you, ARREST THEM, If I went around some town POSTING PICTURES ALL OVER that were private, fucking wrong, embarassing and put private info on it and other things, I WOULD GO TO JAIL AS THAT IS ILLEGAL
So it is on the internet too is it not?
TROLLING - When a comment is made to rile up or bait other people into a discussion. E.G People in Canada don't have roads.
That is a TROLL. It's also not a big fucking deal.
However 'BLAH BLAH THIS WOMEN IS A WHORE FOR CRITIQUEING GAMES, HERE IS HER SLUT ADDRESS'
That is INVASION of privacy, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, HARASSMENT, DISTURBING THE PEACE and many other things if you added more to it.
Learn the fucking laws people, and I mean you too police officers, and fucking use them properly. Fucking anti not nice to be law bullshit.
Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn will be here for a while. So, no, internet trolls will not die anytime soon... Let us also not forget that the term 'social justice warrior' is just a synonym for troll.
When looking at the big picture, the people who bring the most hostility to online communities aren't the traditional trolls. These people may "shitpost" and may engage in petty arguments or name-calling, but they're rather harmless.
It's the so-called "social justice warriors" who are far more harmful in practice. While trolls do what they do "for the lulz", the "social justice warriors" actually take what they do seriously. They are oblivious to the damage they cause to online communities.
The "social justice warriors" don't just post comments, like traditional trolls do. "Social justice warriors" do everything they can to actively censor anyone they choose to target. They attack, and attack, and attack some more.
"Social justice warriors" create the most toxic, awful, hostile communities around. Just look at Reddit, or even Hacker News. It's common to see the vile, repulsive harassment of people there who don't happen to hold the opinions that have been deemed to be "correct" by the "social justice warriors". Those places are much worse than, say, Slashdot, which has a much more balanced and fair moderation system that isn't as open to the abuse that the "social justice warriors" prefer to engage in.
So the GP missed the key point there, which is that it has to be both unwelcome and troublesome. Merely flirting or asking someone out is fine, it's only once it starts causing them trouble (like being very persistent when she has clearly rebuffed you) that it turns into sexual harassment.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Every new generation is the same as the prior generation. This gen has the anonymity of the Internet. The previous gen had the Good Ol' Boys network. The gen before that had the 'Women should be seen and not heard' mentality. Every generation is the same. We should still try to fix it, but we should also recognize that it is endemic to our society as a whole, young and old alike, and not just one segment of it.
He goes first, then follows the controversial poster, then follows the poster who says anything contrary, then goes the poster who doesn't toe the approved line.
Freedom of speech means tolerating some trolls. Better that than to lose that freedom.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Google Translate should not be used for translations. It's a good tool to bypass IP/country restrictions, though...
Try:
"By sexual harassment, [the law] means unwanted sexual attention which is bothersome for the recipient of the attention"
The problem with this definition, as earlier said, is that it hits way outside its intended target - flirting ends up as collateral damage. Any attempt to establish whether such attention would be welcome or not will risk being classified as sexual harassment.
Which might help explain why ethnic Norwegians have one of the lowest procreation rates in the world.
So the GP missed the key point there, which is that it has to be both unwelcome and troublesome.
No, you missed the point that the "victim" defines both of those conditions subjectively.
With normal, socially-well-adjusted folks, that doesn't really present a problem. At the one extreme, however, we have the chronic harasser who really sees nothing wrong with friendly backrubs at work; at the other, we have "professional victims" who get to ruin as many lives in their wake as they want. Both of those extremes make such definitions unworkable in any fair and objective system of justice.
it's only once it starts causing them trouble (like being very persistent when she has clearly rebuffed you) that it turns into sexual harassment.
The fact that you needed to clarify the meaning of "troublesome", as you interpret it, nicely illustrates the real problem here.
I got modded as a Troll a couple of days ago because I called the pro-gun crowd here "testosterone-driven" (sorry guys, sorry. you're right of course, high-powered firearms for everybody makes for a great society). So what makes somebody a troll most of all, I guess, is disagreeing with a local majority that's really convinced of its own righteousness. :)
If the trolls go away, there's nothing for the SJW's to defend, and they go away as well.
History teaches us that it is not so. When all the important topics are exhausted, the standard is elevated and previously petty points are blown out of proportions.
Wasn't troll supposed to mean someone that writes controversial or inflamatory things (even if they don't really believe them) just to get other people debating (fighting) about it so they can sit back and watch the fireworks. Now it's cyber bullies and people who harass women online. It sounds like the old/new definitions of hacker. This new English, it changes faster than Double Talk!
Seems like you are likening legitimate issues to trolling. Busting down barriers for women's rights and segregation are valid. Comparing trolling grammar to suffrage is a bit of a leap.
GP poster did not say anything about restricting how women are allowed to dress. He spoke about looking at women.
How about this: women (and men) get to wear whatever they like. And men (and women) are allowed to look at each other (in public, not talking about peeping toms here) as much as they like. It's your body, you get to put what you want on it. They're my eyeballs, I get to point them whatever direction I want. Autonomy and agency for all, hurrah.
If you think that the way a random woman is dressing in public means she wants to have sex with you, you're an idiot. If you think the way a random man is pointing his eyeballs in public means he wants to rape you, you're an idiot.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Maybe it was because that statement was clearly inflammatory and designed to troll a reaction? Now with an added assertion of your righteousness over theirs.
No, first a police officer, then a public prosecutor and finally a jury of your peers define the conditions under which it is considered sexual harassment.
By the time you get to "police", the accused has already lost his (or her) job, because employers hate dealing with shit like this but can't risk looking soft on harassment.
So as I said, wake of ruined lives while the Violets struggle to figure out why every man they meet runs screaming from them as a sign of unwanted affection.
It reminds me of when I used to watch my neighbors kids. They would fight over a toy. I would walk over slap both of them on the backs of the head (because they were usually punching each other). Take away whatever toy they were fighting over. Then tell them *MY* side is not going to put up with this crap and shut the hell up and dont move from those corners for at least an hour. Most clickbait stories want 2 sides. But there is usually a 3rd side. The wtf is wrong with both of you. I feel this massive urge to slap people upside the head and tell them I do not care about your social justice cause you are trying to create and they need a massive timeout.
Basically we get 3 groups. The quite 'wtf who cares' side, the pro-gg, and anti-gg. The one side is acting like misogynistic twits and stalkers. The other side is acting like militant fuckups and trying to shout down any opinion they dont like. I am squarely in the 3rd group of you both are acting like children, stop it. One side is using the 'anonymous' internet to smear their message around. The other side is using its pulpit of 'free journalism' to push their smear agenda with a side of censorship.
Yeah, I read a subject line about the death of trolls and I got a summary about feminism.
What the fuck? Anyone would think only females are ever victims of trolling going by this summary.
A jury?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It's pretty simple. The next time a feminist blogger gets her panties in a bunch ask her what it would take for her to go away permanently. Under what set of conditions does feminism become obsolete?
I bet you she doesn't have an answer because she never wants to stop meddling.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Very typical SJW troll tactic. Exaggerate his position to the extreme and then *pretend* you knew that was what he meant. Smashing.
This sort of reasoned and mature response has no place on the Internet.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
If she was modestly dressed, no guy would be staring at her tits like that. The only case they would stare is if she was wearing a low cut shirt that DRAWS ATTENTION TO HER TITS (and don't tell me there's any other reason for her to be wearing that). Same as when men go shirtless, before you call me sexist. If you're INVITING ATTENTION, DONT COMPLAIN WHEN YOU GET IT.
Ah, ok. You pick "(b)" then.
...about the only thing that is worse than the SJW brigade is people who feel uncomfortable when they see people fighting and tell them both to stop as if everyone involved in anything resembling a fight are equally to blame for it. It's a damned arrogant attitude that you being annoyed by something is more important than whatever people might be fighting over.
Being attacked? Better not try to resist, lest some dick shows up and punishes you for "fighting" because he's annoyed by the noise.
In a written forum it is even more ridiculous, since you're making an active choice by reading about stuff. If #GG annoys you, don't read about it!
You, sir, is the silent friend of bullies everywhere.
Note: I'm not taking sides in the #GG ridiculousness, and your analysis may well be spot on. Regardless, that doesn't make the above acceptable.
queue the tumblrina's with "just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's not real"
Which is false, that's exactly what it means. A random internet meanie saying something that bothers you is kind of like letting a barking dog hurt your feelings. =/
"The idea is really old tho" is not a valid argument against the first amendment.
The problem here is that the word "troll" has subtly shifted in meaning. When I was first on the Internet in the early 1990s, it was basically online assholes who would make rude comments, try to start flamewars and the like. I don't remember anyone who actually made threats against other people being referred to as "trolls". Back then being abusive like that could get you kicked off of mailing lists, sent you into-moderation hell on moderated newsgroups, and possibly even having your newsfeed terminated by your provider.
This new definition of "troll" is very recent; Twitter-age nomenclature.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Did I say anything about ignoring it?
The great-most-parent of this thread wrote:
You responded to a clarification that referenced a specific country's (Norway's) wording, to claim that one of two equally subjective words ("troublesome") made it just peachy that we had a victim-subjective law.
I disagree with your assertion. That doesn't mean I approve of sexual harassment in the workplace; rather, that if we want people to take it seriously, we need to come up with a reasonably objective metric that doesn't reduce to "don't behave in a way that might offend the most fragile person around you, oh and BTW you won't that threshold until you've crossed it".
As for whether or not people really think like that - I have seriously gotten into arguments with SJWs over whether or not merely complimenting (once, politely and legitimately, not talking about catcalls and shouting "nice tits" at every woman walking by) a stranger in a public place counts as "harassment", only to endure a subsequent rant of "imagine if you had to put up with that everywhere you went, no matter what you did, whether you wanted it or not". Hmm. Yeah, people complimenting me too often, you poor, poor thing! Consider me properly chastised, yup.
Heh, so you're saying trollish threats of violence, of various levels of credibility (ostensibly up to, and including rape) somehow justify incarcerating someone, resulting in actual rape? That's a really skewed viewpoint.
The problem with what you're saying though is, if someone makes a death threat such as "i'm coming to your home at $street to kill you", that's *already* illegal. Just because the method of conveyance is over the internet, doesn't make it unique or novel.