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.
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.
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.
It's not even about that one guy. This is a (repeated) tactic to slander other people who legitimately disagree with her, and distract from the Gamergate scandal.
If Nathan Grayson, Patricia Hernandez, et al were Republicans, Gamergate would be handled exactly like the journalism scandal that it is. The corrupt writers would lose their jobs, their employers would acknowledge the seriousness of the situation and at least attempt to convince us that that it wouldn't happen again, and the rest of their ilk would be watched like a hawk for evidence of similar transgressions for a long, long time.
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.
And then when the blackout didn't work, they colluded in a synchronized shotgun blast of articles to slander their core audience and intimidate any dissenters among them. The long-running smear campaign that began with the "Gamers are Dead" articles continues to this day, and the popularity of Gamergate is the long-running response to it. Every criticism and call for integrity is met with completely irrelevant accusations of misogyny and right-wing motivations. Gamers are (rightly) astonished and appalled to see corruption defended so vigorously (and uniformly).
And now that the smear campaign isn't working either, anonymous threats are used as an excuse to again slander the movement (this time as terrorists) and completely ignore the corruption. So of course as the smear campaign ramped up, the popularity of Gamergate ramped up accordingly--it's averaged over 50K tweets per day for a while now. And the gaming press, having addressed almost none of its ethics issues (to say nothing of its contempt for the gaming community), regularly feigns disbelief that Gamergate hasn't "burned out" yet in one-sided opinion pieces that, if anything, more than prove the need for the movement.
The crazy thing is that Gamergate itself is largely leftist. I am right-wing on many issues, but I've been impressed by (and learned something from) the integrity of the vast majority of left-leaning individuals in Gamergate. They just want journalism they can trust. They want the bad eggs removed, even if the bad eggs share many of their political stances. They understand that circling the wagons to protect "the cause" and "do good work" is likely to result in far more harm to the cause in the long run.
The mainstream media has now taken notice, and is just as happy as the tech press to pretend the journalistic lapses and cover up never happened, and to slander Gamergate as right-wing misogynist terrorists, all to support the invented narrative. It's an all too familiar story to those of us who've seen the mainstream media portray DVD ripping as grand theft auto, net neutrality as communism, or Jack Thompson as a defender of morality. But in this case, unbelievably, even here on Slashdot there hasn't been a Gamergate article yet that doesn't go out of its way to frame the whole issue in terms of misogyny and harrassment (much less an article that's pro- or even neutral). Is Slashdot politically motivated to misrepresent this issue? The question is moot, because most of those articles got 500-1200 replies each, so the Gawker-style clickbaiting is motivation enough. As far as we know, Slashdot's editors are kicking themselves for not praising Jack Thompson years ago as a hero activist.
* not an invalid fear, but you have to cross that bridge when you come to it. If you try to pre-emptively murder the truth then you
Those are the types of pranks 4chan does. They don't actually kill people.
Except for the guy who posted on 4chan a couple days ago about killing his girlfriend. The girlfriend's kid came home from school and found her body.
#DeleteChrome
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.'"
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.
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.
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.
I find it interesting and disturbing how some people would rather believe elaborate conspiracy theories then believe a woman.
The same accusations were made against Anita Sarkeesian. For some reason she posted death and rape threats against herself on Twitter, in order to lose money by being unable to attend public speaking events. Brianna Wu is wasting money on lawyers and obviously wants to lose $11,000 to put some random person behind bars... to massage her own ego or something.
Or maybe it's a $11,000 dare, where the person daring to threaten her wins an all expenses paid holiday in jail.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
Proving you have researched your target and showing you have the means to locate and attack them is pretty much the definition of a serious threat. Any court of law would look at the pre-meditated nature of the threats and the fact that the perpetrator had the means to carry them out and send them to jail.
What they did is a crime and temporarily moving out is a sensible and proportionate response.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC