Slashdot Mirror
Bounties vs. Extreme Internet Harassment
squiggleslash writes Brianna Wu, a game studio owner in Boston, found herself the target of numerous anonymous death threats last month, apparently the escalation of a campaign that started when she spoke up for women in gaming, and that intensified during the GamerGate train wreck. Rather than hide, she's offering an $11,000+ cash reward for anyone who helps put her attacker in jail, and she's reporting — albeit at a time many see GamerGate being in its death throes — that it's already having an effect. Wu is also setting up a legal fund to go after those promoting more extreme libels against her and others, with screenshots of a forged tweet purporting to be written by her still circulating around the Internet.
" albeit at a time many see GamerGate being in its death throes"
Who's saying that?
Oh that's right... people like Brianna Wu who claims she's winning because she's uh... gotta sue people who are no longer bothering her.
It's NOT in its death throes, the media has to prop up that story to claim victory after many corporations pulled funding from gaming mags and sites that attacked gamers for being misogynists.
This entire PR campaign has been nothing but pomp and circumstance to promote a meme and it FAILED.
That happened, in this case. Someone doxxed her, then someone used the dox as part of a death threat against her.
She's also had multiple death threats through a variety of means.
Not just that, but it was only like 5 months ago that someone made threatening statements on YouTube, then shocker, tried to shoot up a sorority house. Then shot whoever was on the street when he couldn't get in. Or the rest of the history of gendered violence against women.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Death threats are illegal, they don't become legal because they're On The Internet any more than an old technology should become patentable because it's done On The Internet.
She isn't demanding that all women on the internet not be degraded online, she's trying to bring criminal charges against people who are sending her death threats.
If this were about people laughing at women, generally being sexist, or even calling them bad names, you'd have a point.
This is about extreme harassment - death threats, attempts to fake evidence to get other mobs involved, etc. Not laughing at people. Not calling them names. Not disagreeing with them.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
We don't. Because the people in question are likely 12 and 13yrs old and couldn't get convicted anyway. The people in an uproar over this have this idea in their heads that there are an army of tech savvy Rush Limbaughs out their attacking them. And that's certainly not what's going on. The majority of people on the internet are under the age of 18... think about it for more than a second and you'll agree. The idea that you could sit in a chat room filled with teenage boys that can speak in complete anonymity and not get made fun of is a laughable. "The Internet" is not a PBS debate forum, it's a dirty coed locker room in highschool and there's no teacher.
The fact that anyone takes this seriously shows just how naive they really are. Think about it... someone can type words... on the Internet... and you're in an uproar. That's like putting a button in the middle of the mall that if you push it, it calls a swat team. Of course it's going to get pressed over and over and over again. Stop sending the swat team, the kids will stop pressing it.
Damn my spotlight is fading out. Lets get the media machine going so I can get back in the limelight.
Really I don't know which bothers me more, that the press forms these phalanxes to shove alternate realities down our throats in a way that would have George Orwell blanching or that people line up and lap it up.
Do you seriously think if anyone didn't want the death threats and publicity that comes with them, they would go around DARING people on the internet to make threats against them ?
It's about time that teenage shitheads, and those who should have grown out of being teenage shitheads by now, realise that older engineers didn't create the internet just so they could to get their kicks by being antisocial shitheads towards everyone around them.
Oh, there's a way to put an end to these death-threat "pranks". Have the cops arrest and prosecute whoever makes them.
A death-threat is not a "prank". People who have gotten death threats have actually wound up dead, and you never know if the person on the other end is crazy, so you have to treat all of them as real.
I'm not going to lose sleep over a few trolls doing some jail time or getting hit with hefty fines. Or parents paying hefty fines on behalf of their idiot teens.
I'm perfectly happy for sites like this to retain the IP address of anyone who posts as Anonymous, in case law enforcement shows up at their door with a warrant to investigate a death threat or similar lunacy.
The threats were not serious. Going "OMG they have my ADDRESS!!! I have to move out!!!" She reported it to the police (the right thing to do) but temporarily moving was HER decision, not a police recommendation.
People who make threats on the Internet do so because they're scared punks who hide behind anonymity. Would they actually go and DO something physical? Of course not - that would risk the very anonymity that allows them to act like punks in the first place.
I get it - you let a bunch of anonymous freaks get to you. But doesn't there come a time when you should stop feeding them by showing how seriously you take them? The perps are laughing themselves silly at this point, because that's what trolls do - get an emotional (as opposed to rational) reaction. Anyone connected with IT knows you DFTT - unless you're trolling them back :-)
Time was when everyone's name and address were public - we had this thing called a "phone book". For those of you too young to remember, go watch the original Terminator, where "Ahh-nold" gets the list of Sarah Connors from a phone book. Who cares is some coward has your address? Really?
And before some punk says "So why don't you post your address online for all the cyber-bullies?" - already did that in another user's journal discussion on gamergate.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Either way any online death threat should be investigated. In the end the person (if old enough) should be publicly called out and shamed. If underage their parents would then be notified and HOPE they deal with it. Also I wouldn't object to the parents being send part of the investigation bill. They can put their child to work washing dishes and mowing the lawn till they are 18 to pay for it.
If it's found to be credible then it's time to prosecute.
Death threats are illegal, they don't become legal because they're On The Internet any more than an old technology should become patentable because it's done On The Internet.
She isn't demanding that all women on the internet not be degraded online, she's trying to bring criminal charges against people who are sending her death threats.
Says the person that modded me troll and then posted anon. Ironic that you're using the same methods as the people you despise don't you think?
Yes, modding someone down on Slashdot is exactly the same as doxing someone and deliver them death threats in real life.
no they don't, and making death threats against ANYONE is wrong and should be dealt with, regardless of gender.
Idiot.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sure. That's a fine use of our collective resources, destroying the lives of kids saying stupid things online.
Of course you aren't going to "lose sleep" over the imposition of a police state. You erroneously think it won't be used against you. That's the fallacy of every one of history's most notorious regimes.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Gotcha... You would rather live in a Soviet or Iranian style police state where even the smallest bit of mindless nonsense is treated like a threat against the state.
Now hoooooold on thar, pardner! I'm more or less with you in this debate, but your hyperbole is old and tired. There's a very big difference between death threats against a private citizen, and seditious speech. And let's face it, a death threat is kiddie grade terrorism. There's nothing defensible about it in these circumstances whatsoever. It is a form of assault, and it should be investigated and prosecuted. We could argue about what constitutes a threat (I'm not going to, but we could) but if you think it's okay to tell people that you're going to kill them, then you really are part of the problem. Words do have consequences, you are responsible for what comes out of your face, act accordingly. Obviously, the same goes for any other kind of expression. You're only responsible for other people's mental state as a result of your words if, in short, you are trolling. If your goal is simply to hurt them, that's not actually legal. It's a form of assault, and the law recognizes that in certain clear-cut cases.
Death threats are the children's version of terrorism. Only abject cowards engage in such pathetic behavior in an attempt to change others' actions, however they might feel about them. They might be justified if used to prevent violence. Not in this case.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
All trolling is the same. The only difference is what it takes to get the victim to go on the internet and tell everyone how upset you are. If you're bar is: Death threats... guess what the trolls going to say? You do not understand your attacker, and that's your problem. I am trying to educate you, so stop treating me like I'm your threat. I am not. I'm not trolling you at all. The fact that the trolls in question have you so wound up you're attacking anyone that doesn't go along with your mixed up narrative of what's really happening meanings they are winning hardcore. If you want to keep enjoying the internet, you're going to have to learn how to deal with people like this and the way to deal with them is simple. Ignore them.
People who have gotten death threats have actually wound up dead
And many many many more have gotten killed without death threats. And many many many more have not had anything bad happen to them after getting death threats.
No one has any problem with investigating credible death threats. Random Internet death threats have just proven not to be credible. There is simply not enough resources to investigate them all. Simply a sad fact of life.
Hey, I've got a fun fact for you:
Threats aren't protected under any nations' free speech protections. Zero of them.
Having stupid opinions, and insulting people are protected under: a great many.
Whether you pretend there's no difference or not, this is a long-settled question, and you need to grow up.
Yes, I have started following her on Twitter. She is abrasive. No, I wouldn't agree though that she's "histrionic" or "goes out of her way to get attention".
She's been the target of a sustained attack campaign for a while now. I can't say if it started before or after Adam Baldwin decided a video detailing Zoe Quinn's sex life was a "*Gate" and deserved a new hashtag to be associated with it, but the death threats followed her retweeting someone else's mash up of some of the more ludicrous attacks sent her way.
But, FWIW, yes, you're victim blaming. You're seeing someone responding to attacks and claiming that makes them, what was the term you used, "histrionic"? Quite honestly, even if she was, she wouldn't deserve the death threats, and she wouldn't deserve screenshots forged tweets designed to make people hate her distributed around the Internet.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
But no. Because the perpetrators were extreme leftists, they're afraid that the scandal might give folks like Fox News and Limbaugh political ammo*, so there was a complete media blackout, the likes of which I've never seen before (not a SINGLE article detailing the corruption, on ANY tech/gaming site, for a week). Another part of the blackout was blanket censorship in user forums/comments, up to and including reddit and--no bullshit--4chan. IMO this censorship of users merely discussing the scandal is still the most oppressive (and damning) anti-GG measure of all.
This paragraph tells me that you're probably suffering from cognitive dissonance, and are now fabricating conspiracy theories to explain your version of reality, instead of acknowledging that your closely-held beliefs are simply flat-out wrong.
It's okay, dear. Sit down and rest your head for a bit. Maybe you'll be okay after you've had a nap.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
How much of a loser do you have to be to make death threats over anything remotely linked to video games?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"they're not out there issuing death threats when the subject is global warming or football"
Yes, they are. Trolls are trolling every person in every topic. If you choose to only see some of them that is your bias.
I don't think you realise this but it illegal to threaten to kill someone. So yes, every death threat issued in a bar that is reported and where there is suitable evidence should be prosecuted and where convicted rehabilitative action taken as well as compulsary remediation by the perpetrator to the victim. Punitive punishment is absolutely pointless and that is a lesson that needs to be taught to the perpetrators, effective rehabilitation in conjunction with remediation is the only sound solution.
Rewards are not really that effective and public action is far more suitable. So don't just phone in a report it to the local police. Collect all the evidence, package it and then go with that evidence to all the applicable authorities keeping in mind threat across state boundaries bring in Federal authorities. So local, state and federal police as well as the communications authority. Forming a political action group to seek greater policing activity in the pursuit of those issuing online death threats, in an actual threatening manner.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The majority of people on the internet are under the age of 18... think about it for more than a second and you'll agree.
I went one better and googled it: http://www.statista.com/statis...
So, not really then.
The trolls seems to vary in age but most are adults. Just head over to YouTube and watch a few of their videos.
Think about it... someone can type words... on the Internet... and you're in an uproar.
That fact that it is only a minority going as far as death and rape threats suggests that such behaviour is extreme and unacceptable to most people, even with the shield of anonymity. Anyway, it goes beyond just typing stuff on the internet. When people post threats along with your home address you have little choice but to take it seriously and secure yourself.
This isn't about children screaming at each other, it's about people making credible threats that they have the means to carry out against. They must have spent time researching the crime to get her home address, it's not just an idle threat.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
destroying the lives of kids saying stupid things online.
Me? I'd call it a valuable life lesson.
The moment you target someone else, personally and by name, and threaten to kill them... that's a very clear and very obvious line. There's nothing slippery about it. Protection against threats like that is not a police state. It's called civilization. I don't care if the cesspools of the internet have been getting away with it up until now just because it didn't catch the public's eye. Enough's enough. This shit has got to stop, and frankly, it appears that the only way to make it stop is if people have a reasonable fear that there might be real-world consequences - that's something few people like to admit. Their rights stop right at the line where they start trying to ruin other people's lives.
It's pretty damn easy to pontificate about slippery slopes or a police state when you're not the one getting personally addressed death threats. Or aren't a women, who, coincidentally, happen to be a bit physically smaller and weaker on average than men and therefore are more vulnerable to physical assaults.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
It's really sad how every major publication leaves out half the story and instead tries to paint the gaming community as the source of the problem.
It's really sad how some cowardly gamers won't acknowledge that the death threats are the problem, and that their only source is some other cowardly gamers — the people who made the death threats. See, nothing here justifies those death threats.
Also, I really doubt the gaming community as a whole would condone any threats of violence against these women.
That's what you are doing right now when you assert that the "source of the problem" isn't the source of the problem, that is, the problem. The people making the death threats are the problem. No amount of dishonesty in games journalism (wank wank, stroke stroke, flonk.flonk.flonk) justifies death threats. Let me repeat that, no amount. It doesn't matter if someone tells you that Halo has the most imaginative level design ever or that GTAV never crashes or that some boring little indie game that barely rates a yawn is really ground-breaking and imaginative, you don't make death threats unless you are basically six years old, have no idea what you're on about, and very poorly parented besides.
When you make excuses for people harassing people and making death threats, you are part of the problem. No amount of hand-waving can possibly change that. You're helping to enable bad behavior. Why would you want to associate yourself with that?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I don't think you realise this but it illegal to threaten to kill someone. So yes, every death threat issued in a bar that is reported and where there is suitable evidence should be prosecuted and where convicted rehabilitative action taken as well as compulsary remediation by the perpetrator to the victim.
Wow... I bet you're a blast at parties.
But it's impossible to catch anonymous teenagers on the internet after they post anything at all... much less hollow death threats. So now where has all your flailing about gotten you?
In this case they were credible. They included her home address.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You know, maybe GamerGate was sparked by those events, but it's really not about that any more for me. The moment the unbelievable misogyny and the death threats started, it overshadowed everything else. I don't care who was behind it. Frankly, I think it actually exposed a problem far worse than anything related to journalistic integrity, and that's the lack of even the most basic tenets of civilization in many of our online communities. And actually, it's not just relegated to GamerGate.
Ask any prominent female figure who's active online, and she'll probably tell you some eye-opening stories about online harassment. How about having pictures taking of your house along with implied threats? How about photos of your children Photoshopped with pornographic or violent content? That's stuff that's actually happened, and it's driven some women off the internet and out of the public eye entirely - which was probably the intent to begin with.
You wonder why the issue is only framed in terms of misogyny and harassment? Because people are getting doxxed and real, honest-to-God death threats are being made against them. You dismiss them as "anonymous", but seriously, who exactly signs a death threat with their real name? What distinguishes a "lol troll" death threat from a "legitimate" one other than the intent to kill in the minds of the senders? The notion that these women are sending themselves or making these threats up seems a bit far-fetched to me. In either case, whether an intent to kill is real or not, what is undeniably real is the intent to threaten and harass these people.
Do you know why GamerGate is being "buried"? Because compared to "journalistic integrity", women getting harassed with death threats is about a 100x bigger deal. It's not a mystery. Gamers who verbally attacked those women instead of articulating a message should have taken a page from Ghandi or MLK. If you take away your opponents ability to attack your methods, then all they have left is the ability to attack your message, and then you can compete on the merits of your arguments.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Well, it really started out with a small game called Depression Quest that was getting rather good reviews, which made a bunch of people get all twisted up in a knot because it wasn't a traditional "game". Which because it was made by a woman (who suffered from depression) who was friends with a Kotaku writer. And that was the belief that the ONLY reason Depression Quest was well reviewed was because of that - the game developers were getting in bed with the journalists and thus upvoting those kind of games over say, Call of Duty. (Of course, no such link was ever found other than yes, the two were friends).
Of course, the silly thing is - the "gamers" worried that the nonsense games they play (like say, Call of Duty) will go away in lieu of games that have a purpose and such are completely mistaken and we've got history to prove it.
In books, we have literature and we have pulp. The former is like games like Depression Quest - there's a message and we would be better humans if we heed it. But we also have the pulp - the kind of book that's fascinating to read but really in the end, it's rather meaningless. It's just entertainment.
Likewise, movies are the same - we have the ones that have messages and meanings and intend to spur action. And then we have the summer blockbuster that serves to entertain for a couple of hours and is completely meaningless. Just a couple of hours of fun.
Games have grown up - we can have both games that have meaning and purpose, and games that are completely just for fun. The medium has matured. There's no worry that the "fun" games are going away - like the pulp fiction and blockbuster, they're the games that'll make the most money. Games with messages and the like are out there, but they'll never attract the same kind of money. It doesn't matter how good Depression Quest is, Call of Duty will sell more copies in 5 minutes than Depression Quest would've had the year it's been out. And Depression Quest is free. (Nevermind that reviews on the new Call of Duty game aren't terribly positive either - it's still in the hundreds of millions of dollars).
So a bunch of people have their panties in a knot because of something that's never happened. Sure the games with messages might get better ratings, but so what? Call of Duty can bomb and still make billions. Ask Michael Bay (whose movies rake in the billions) about being scored 2 stars or less on a review.
And yes, games that are meaningless will be poorly reviewed generally, just like blockbusters generally get poor reviews. Does it matter? Not a damn bit.
No one has any problem with investigating credible death threats. Random Internet death threats have just proven not to be credible. There is simply not enough resources to investigate them all. Simply a sad fact of life.
All kinds of people responding to this very story right here apparently have a problem with investigating credible death threats, which this very story is about. Some of those people are arbitrarily and without evidence claiming that death threats (which for some reason they designate as "random") over the Internet are not credible.
I'm not sure why anyone would consider a death threat against a controversial and apparently rather abrasive public figure "random" rather than, say, "motivated". If someone threatened me or you it would be "random", because we're just not very special or interesting (well, I'm not, anyway). But a public figure near the centre of the amazingly childish fit of anger known as "gamergate"? That's not random. It's motivated.
It's easy to dismiss credible, motivated threats when they are not against you. Stupid people lack the imagination to understand how unsettling it can be to get direct, specific threats against themselves that include details of where they live.
To declare an entire class of threats non-credible because of the medium used to deliver them is not reasonable. It's like the cops say, "Well, this note is written in crayon, so even though it says they're going to kill you it's not credible! Who ever took a note written in crayon seriously!" Ridiculous.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Honest question.
If I walked down the streets of Harlem wearing a white supremacist shirt, and people started making verbal threats at me, maybe even accosting me and/or shooting guns in my general direction to watch me dance... should I be pissed that they are being threatening/abusive towards me, or should I maybe not walk down the streets of Harlem wearing a white supremacist shirt? Is there something else I should be thinking?
Basically - Die Hard with a Vengeance.
That may be overstating the matter a bit. But dammit, if my cousin poked a bear with a stick, and the bear mauled him, I'd be pissed at him because he poked the bear with the stick. That may be "victim blaming". It's still, in that case, completely appropriate. Ladies and gentlemen, and kids, do not poke bears with sticks.
Playing the "victim blaming" card is not an appropriate knee-jerk reaction to any response, as much as playing the "racist" card is not an appropriate knee-jerk reaction when any Republican opens their mouth.
I blame the victim for feeding the trolls. At this point, the perpetrator of these threats is just doing it for the lulz. No one is actually going to kill her. But if you're a troll, this entire gamergate situation is a bounteous feast. All you have to do is write a nasty tweet and Wu goes off railing against misogynist gamers. Gamers chaff and argue back at her. The troll could have nothing to do with the "gamer community." Just write one nasty tweet and watch the neckbeards and SJWs scream at each other. Much lulz.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
That's not victim blaming; it is stating a fact. If you get a threat and continuously go on about it and advertise it to the world you will attract more attention seekers to make threats. No one is saying she deserves them we are just identifying the cause and effect. A cause and effect that no one knows any way to avoid. An effect that has always proven to be >99.99% without consequence so some people tell her it is no big deal. Unfortunately that doesn't go over well with someone that is pretty histrionic. Stop calling everything victim blaming. It is damaging and enables actual victim blaming.
Yes, someone announcing on twitter the moment they receive any threats, retweeting any negative comments and publicly announcing how scared for their life they are is pretty much the definition of histrionic. It's also indicative of someone going out of their way for attention. I'm sorry you don't like that but it is what it is.
She hasn't been a continuous target. She fans the flames constantly. You can't claim to be a target of something you are also constantly antagonizing.
Those internet age demographics you link seem to claim that absolutely nobody on the internet is under the age of 15, which makes me somewhat doubtful about the accuracy of the rest of the breakdown.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."