Slashdot Mirror


Yik Yak Raises Controversy On College Campuses

HughPickens.com writes Jonathan Mahler writes in the NYT that just as Facebook swept through the dorm rooms of America's college students a decade ago, the social app Yik Yak, which shows anonymous messages from users within a 1.5-mile radius is now taking college campuses by storm. "Think of it as a virtual community bulletin board — or maybe a virtual bathroom wall at the student union," writes Mahler. "It has become the go-to social feed for college students across the country to commiserate about finals, to find a party or to crack a joke about a rival school." While much of the chatter is harmless, some of it is not. "Yik Yak is the Wild West of anonymous social apps," says Danielle Keats Citron. "It is being increasingly used by young people in a really intimidating and destructive way." Since the app's introduction a little more than a year ago, Yik Yak has been used to issue threats of mass violence on more than a dozen college campuses, including the University of North Carolina, Michigan State University and Penn State. Racist, homophobic and misogynist "yaks" have generated controversy at many more, among them Clemson, Emory, Colgate and the University of Texas. At Kenyon College, a "yakker" proposed a gang rape at the school's women's center.

Colleges are largely powerless to deal with the havoc Yik Yak is wreaking. The app's privacy policy prevents schools from identifying users without a subpoena, court order or search warrant, or an emergency request from a law-enforcement official with a compelling claim of imminent harm. Esha Bhandari, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, argues that "banning Yik Yak on campuses might be unconstitutional," especially at public universities or private colleges in California where the so-called Leonard Law protects free speech. She said it would be like banning all bulletin boards in a school just because someone posted a racist comment on one of the boards. In one sense, the problem with Yik Yak is a familiar one. Anyone who has browsed the comments of an Internet post is familiar with the sorts of intolerant, impulsive rhetoric that the cover of anonymity tends to invite. But Yik Yak's particular design can produce especially harmful consequences, its critics say. "It's a problem with the Internet culture in general, but when you add this hyper-local dimension to it, it takes on a more disturbing dimension," says Elias Aboujaoude." "You don't know where the aggression is coming from, but you know it's very close to you."

367 comments

  1. Baking political correctness in society by HBI · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The effect is to create something like this - an anonymous way for people to let out the aggressions and hatreds that they already had, and are just afraid to announce due to the attempted control of speech in any public, identifiable arena.

    Maybe leaving things alone was better? Sacrificing free speech for a better society was the argument. So now what? We're stuck with the bad with none of the good.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Baking political correctness in society by davide+marney · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, who is making the argument that we should "sacrifice free speech for a better society"? That sounds positively Orwellian. Or something from China, where the government runs a massive censorship operation.

      Liberal folks, this is your issue. The conservatives and libertarians are all over preserving the right to speech. Where is your support for the same? Speech is not action, it's just someone's opinion. Speech cannot hurt you, but the lack of freedom to speak most definitely can. You cannot "speak truth to power" if you cannot speak. What, no one remembers the Matrix?

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    2. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem with something like YikYak is you loose the context if whatever is said. If someone says something in front of people then they also get to know stuff like: are they drunk; have they just been dumped; did they just get a bad mark; does it even look like they believe what they are saying. Put it on YikYak and all that is gone, and shorn of the context people have a tendancy to believe. THEN things can spiral out of control.

      Not saying its good or bad, but its not just a free speech issue.

    3. Re:Baking political correctness in society by HBI · · Score: 5, Interesting

      OK, Try listening to some television recorded in the 1970s or 1980s and then listen to today's equivalent. Back then, people would identify each other by ethnicity and criticize each other openly. Nada today. Demonstrates a clear censorship, and calling it 'self-censorship' is bullshit, it's a centrally mandated process. Everyone feels better, right? But when anonymity is achieved, as in trolls on the net and this service, people show their true colors.

      Being oblivious to the process doesn't mean it didn't happen.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    4. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wow, who is making the argument that we should "sacrifice free speech for a better society"?

      The answer is this person, among others: http://www.thecrimson.com/colu...

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure most of the comments are just trolling. Suggesting a gang rang is classic trolling, i.e. it pisses off as many people as possible.

      Stop feeding the trolls and the problem goes away.

    6. Re:Baking political correctness in society by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, who is making the argument that we should "sacrifice free speech for a better society"?

      Pretty much everyone who mentions "hate speech" as an issue. Which, of course, includes the governments of every country with hate speech laws....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:Baking political correctness in society by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's the classic harsh internet reality that society doesn't like to face. To have true free speech, you must have anonymity. But some of that free speech is going to be things that society isn't used to hearing (and doesn't want to hear), because society isn't used to true anonymity.

      Look at it as an insight into how people REALLY feel--when they're not compelled by threat of expulsion/arrest/harassment to be polite and politically correct.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    8. Re:Baking political correctness in society by blue+trane · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The words are just symbols. The emotions you attach to them are your own. The problem is projection: "the only way I could say that is if I were a bad person. Therefore, the person who said it is a bad person." But that psychological logic forgets humor, lies, and bots.

      More free speech, leading to more virtual violence, should reduce the need for physical violence. We should be fighting ISIS's words on social media, not trying to ban them.

    9. Re:Baking political correctness in society by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Wow, who is making the argument that we should "sacrifice free speech for a better society"?

      Pretty much every university in the U.S. and Europe at this point. Saying the wrong thing that offends someone on a college campus these days will get you kicked out faster than banging Dean Wormer's wife. You don't even have real free speech rights anymore in the few "free speech areas" that they've allotted. It's all-but-considered assault if you make a comment that can even be CONSTRUED as offensive.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    10. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the good ol' days right after the Civil Rights movement. All the criticizism and threats right after Martin Luther King Jr ended racism were just a bit of fun. Now, everyone is so serious and can't take a joke anymore.

    11. Re:Baking political correctness in society by c · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...an anonymous way for people to let out the aggressions and hatreds that they already had, and are just afraid to announce...

      I doubt it.

      Most of them are just trolls. You know, bored assholes who've learned exactly which buttons to press to get the most reaction out of society.

      That being said, the root of the problem is the same; political correctness is fundamentally just a way to tell the trolls which buttons are the best.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    12. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do not lump conservatives with libertarians.
      Conservatives are just as happy to sensor speech that they do not like because it is anti-Christian/American or too Muslim/Mexican/foreign sounding.

    13. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anonymous speech's purpose is to be able to say things that might be harmful to YOU if you say them. Using anonymous speech to say things that are harmful to OTHERS is cowardly and generally speaking not protected by the First Amendment nor should it.

    14. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Social responsibility"?. As others have mentioned it IS censorship if you try to use various threats (lawsuits, regulation, laws, etc) to encourage a desired outcome. We call it terrorism when its done by nutjobs with threats of violence and called "social responsibility" when its done by threats of taking away peoples livelihood (lawsuits) or freedom (files/jail) by the government. People need to grow a spine, you're always going to have people who thrive on generating controversy. As long as they only do it verbally government should not get involved in any way (police, lawsuits, courts, etc) when they move from words to threats/violence THEN they should get smacked upside the head with the biggest lawbook one can find.

    15. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is just private agreement between irresponsible adults.

      FTFY

    16. Re:Baking political correctness in society by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      OK, Try listening to some television recorded in the 1970s or 1980s and then listen to today's equivalent.

      That was one of the amusing side effects of the 40th anniversary of SNL, where they played selected shows from way back when. One at least one occasion they prefaced the show with a message basically stating that this was a show from another era, and that's how they were back then (in addition to the messages stating that the shows originally payed at a later time slot)

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    17. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Liberals are just as happy to sensor speech that they do not like because it is pro-Christian/American or anti-Muslim/Mexican/foreign sounding.

      FTFY

    18. Re:Baking political correctness in society by ctrlshift · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Liberal folks, this is your issue. The conservatives and libertarians are all over preserving the right to speech.

      This, from the party that is attempting to ban the term "climate change"
      Remember this? http://www.miamiherald.com/new... It's kinda recent...

      I don't know why "free speech" seems to lose all its value when NOT being used to threaten women.

    19. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Anonymous speech's purpose is to be able to say things that might be harmful to YOU if you say them. Using anonymous speech to say things that are harmful to OTHERS is cowardly and generally speaking not protected by the First Amendment nor should it.

      And who gets to decide which is which? If I say "Black people commit most of the violent crime in this country and it's time we stop excusing them for it" that is certainly an opinion that could get a student expelled on almost any college campus (and quite likely, attacked or threatened by blacks). But a sensitive black student could also argue that it was "hate speech" that harmed him or her. So is that free speech? Or is free speech only speech that couldn't possible offend anyone?

    20. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trolling isn't showing your true colors. There may be some part of the troll that feels what they say is true, but they are really doing it to get a reaction and will exaggerate their points.

    21. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, yes it is. Censorship can indeed apply even if there is no government action involved. What does not come into play if there is no government action involved is the First Amendment

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    22. Re:Baking political correctness in society by CaptainDork · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But when anonymity is achieved, as in trolls on the net and this service, people show their true colors.

      You have no way of knowing if that's true or not.

      I can post random shit on the Internet for random reasons that have absolutely no correlation to any personal beliefs or positions on various subjects and you cannot, with accuracy, determine what my true thoughts are.

      Trolls can be gross and their posts can be received poorly, but assigning an accurate profile to the troll is impossible.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    23. Re: Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the fuck when does television have a single thing to do with free speech? Lousy comparitave.

    24. Re:Baking political correctness in society by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not this.

      Look at it as an insight into how people REALLY feel ...

      The cloak of anonymity is not the cloak of truthfulness.

      "Troll," is not a new or complex concept. It is graffiti. Sure, some of it is offensive or upsetting, but we should be concerned only when an ordinace of law has been violated.

      For instance, spray painting the "N" word on public places is classified as hate speech. Changing that to, "The mayor sux." would simply be defacing property, at best.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    25. Re: Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "OK, Try listening to some television recorded in the 1970s or 1980s and then listen to today's equivalent. Back then, people would identify each other by ethnicity and criticize each other openly. Nada today. Demonstrates a clear censorship, and calling it 'self-censorship' is bullshit, it's a centrally mandated process. Everyone feels better, right? But when anonymity is achieved, as in trolls on the net and this service, people show their true colors.
      Being oblivious to the process doesn't mean it didn't happen."

      Since the fuck when does a television broadcast have anything to do with an individuals right to free speech? Right-NEVER. Lousy comparative

    26. Re:Baking political correctness in society by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Kinda, except for the political correctness dig.

      I don't object to references to raping my daughter and leaving her in a bloody pile in a ditch because it's politically incorrect.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    27. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Liberal folks, this is your issue. The conservatives and libertarians are all over preserving the right to speech. Where is your support for the same?

      Liberals are by definition "all over preserving the right to speech".

      Authoritarian progressives are not.

      Authoritarian progressives have taken over some of the political and social organs often associated in popular thought with "liberalism". I think this can be traced back to the 1988 Presidential campaign, when Bush attacked Dukakis as a "card carrying member of the ACLU", and rather than pushing back with "yes, I support civil liberties as enshrined in the Bill of Rights -- you don't? Shame on you!", the Democrats began a retreat from those values.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    28. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OK, Try listening to some television recorded in the 1970s or 1980s and then listen to today's equivalent. Back then, people would identify each other by ethnicity and criticize each other openly. Nada today. Demonstrates a clear censorship, and calling it 'self-censorship' is bullshit, it's a centrally mandated process. Everyone feels better, right?

      What you call self-censorship I would call being civil. A society establishes rules and norms for behaviors it considers acceptable, and individuals are still free to act contrary to those norms; however such actions are subject to the condemnation of society at large.

      But when anonymity is achieved, as in trolls on the net and this service, people show their true colors.

      Being oblivious to the process doesn't mean it didn't happen.

      There are always assholes in this world; and most are cowards who would hide behind anonymity to avoid getting their ass kicked. Others simply think it's funny without regard to the consequences of their actions; that is especially true, as studies show, of teenagers who have not yet fully developed the capacity to think their actions through to possible consequences.

      I am all for free speech, even what I would find distasteful, since censoring it doesn't allow people to address issues it raises and the best way to address bad ideas is to expose them to the light of day. However, schools also have the problem of balancing speech with acting in the face of a threat. It's all well and good to say most of them are simply juvenile jokes, even if they do hurt others, and will not be acted on; however how do you separate those from a real threat. More importantly, how do accomplish that without trampling on free speech rights?

      As an aside, I find the Leonard Law interesting in that it compels private institutions to comply with government limit son restricting speech. What I find interesting is it was proposed by a Republican, which goes to show they are for private property rights and limited government until someone does something they don't like and then the "heavy hand" of "government overreach" is brought out to compile someone to comply with their viewpoint of what is correct. Sometimes I think the two parties in the US should merge and just call themselves the Hypocrisy Party with the head of an ass and the body of an elephant to demonstrate their thinking capacity and view of the proper size of a government.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    29. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 0

      Using anonymous speech to say things that are harmful to OTHERS is cowardly and generally speaking not protected by the First Amendment nor should it.

      Speech can only harm a person if it is credible. (E.g., I start a credible rumor about you, your reputation is damaged.) Anonymous speech is not credible.

      And there is no exception in the First Amendment for "harmful" speech. Nor should there be. Sometimes speech should be harmful to people. "John Doe broke the law!" is harmful to John Doe, but if it's true it should certainly be protected.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    30. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow, who is making the argument that we should "sacrifice free speech for a better society"? That sounds positively Orwellian.

      It is. Political correctness is newspeak.

      Attempt to say or write anything that is outside the bounds of political correctness and the peer groups will swoop in and ostracize you regardless of how benign the comment was.

      Just ask one the members of their public lynch mob, Adria Richards, or better yet ask her two victims.

    31. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      will get you kicked out faster than banging Dean Wormer's wife.

      Only if you are on double secret probation.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    32. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Liberal folks, this is your issue."
      Fuck you - this has nothing to do with me, so its not my issue at all.

    33. Re:Baking political correctness in society by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      And thus you demonstrate why hate speech laws are broken by design. I dont have to like it but people have the right to be idiots and assholes, until they do something tangible.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    34. Re:Baking political correctness in society by TheCarp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That isn't really how people proejct though, a person seldom attributes his own actions to his own nature. Its more like "I said this because I was upset" or "I said that because he was an asshole and deserved to hear it." whereas "he said that because he is a racist" or "he said that because he is an asshole".

      That would be more how people tend to actually think about things.... I stole from the store because I ...was bored and seeking thrills or .... was hungry and needed money.

      You stole from the store because you think its ok to steal and you are entitled to it.

      See how different we can be. I do everything for exeternal reasons, everyone else just follows their nature.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    35. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Censorship does not apply if there is no government action involved

      Censorship LAW might not apply if there's no governement action involved.
      Censorship itself still does.

    36. Re:Baking political correctness in society by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Hate speech laws are broken by what/which design? Elaborate.

      My point was that people have to do something tangible: "For instance, spray painting the "N" word on public places is classified as hate speech. Changing that to, "The mayor sux." would simply be defacing property, at best."

      What's your point?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    37. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, too. Spew all the hateful vitriol you like, but leave me out of it.

    38. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Censorship LAW might not apply if there's no governement action involved. Censorship itself still does.

      Freedom of speech does not mean you can come into my hose by force and demand I listen to you rant about Jeebus.

      Freedom of speech does not allow you to call 911 and swat me.

      Freedom of speech does not allow you to make fraudulent bomb threats ot terrorist threats.

      Threats of violence are not covered.

      Opposing opinions and not being arrested for holding those opinions and speaking out about them are covered.

      And call ing the everyday things that we do to be civilized censorship are simply stupid. I saw a very attractive woman at breakfast this morning. In that definition I self-censored myself from trying to engage in sex with her.

      as for Yik-Yak's policy of not giving out names without a subpoena, well, that can be taken care of quickly. I'm sure everyon except the anarchists would simply love to know who the anonymous asshat was who called in whatever bogus threat they made.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    39. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do not lump conservatives with libertarians. Conservatives are just as happy to sensor speech that they do not like because it is anti-Christian/American or too Muslim/Mexican/foreign sounding.

      And modern day Libertarians are Just Republicans pretending to be Libertarians. A particularly noxious combination.

      Okay, you can start swearing at me now.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    40. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Rei · · Score: 2

      That would be great if we lived in a world where people don't actually commit rape. Meanwhile, in the real world, it's actually disturbingly common. Just because you see someone proposing a gang rape behind a veil of anonymity doesn't mean that they were just joking. It's eminently possible that they were 100% serious.

      Anyway, while this is portrayed as something that universities physically can't do anything about without going to court, there's actually a number of things they could do, from a technical standpoint. For example, if the comments are being made through university networks, they could be sniffed and logged. Even if they're encrypted (I don't know how the YikYak protocol works), they could be correlated by timestamp. Posting threats could be made (and probably already is) a violation of the network TOS, and reason to suspect a violation of the TOS cause to inspect the logs. This wouldn't (and probably legally couldn't) be done in secret, it would have to be publicly stated in the TOS that users have to agree to in order to use the network (all universities have acceptable use policies), that any network data can be logged and stored, with access to the logs granted only for review in the event of a suspected TOS violation.

      It of course wouldn't help if it was say posted via a cell phone. But it would catch some cases. There may be other weaknesses in how YikYak works that would help catch people.

      --
      "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
    41. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Attempt to say or write anything that is outside the bounds of political correctness and the peer groups will swoop in and ostracize you regardless of how benign the comment was.

      Hil-fucking-larious. You demonstrate the fallacy so many people have about free speech.

      Let me lay it out for you:

      You are allowed to have your opinion.

      They are allowed to have theirs

      It does not mean you posit what you like, and no one is allowed to respond to it.

      That isn't free speech at all.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    42. Re:Baking political correctness in society by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The effect is to create something like this - an anonymous way for people to let out the aggressions and hatreds that they already had, and are just afraid to announce due to the attempted control of speech in any public, identifiable arena.

      Unlike with air as the medium for acoustic waves, in this case, ignoring the communication is simple: just don't install that nonsense.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    43. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we trying to "ban" ISIS because we don't agree with their philosophy or because of what they do to promote their influence?

      AC because I moded some comments.

    44. Re:Baking political correctness in society by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actual liberals are against censorship. But that's a statement in English, not in Americanese.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    45. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh hey, who'daguessed it, apparently the protocol is super-weak.

      What could I do with this API?

      Good question.

      You can do anything the Yik Yak app can do. You can post messages, upvote messages as well as downvote them. I must note that there's really no true verification that happens here, it's all crappy PHP scripts all hidden behind SSL.

      I'm sure you can figure out if I've used the API or not already, but I will say this is really abusable and can be used to do just about anything as well.

      Want a username on Yik Yak (a handle) without having to ask people to redeem your code? All you need to write some code to redeem your code 4 times from different user IDs and bam.

      Want to delete a comment or message off Yik Yak? You can downvote that comment/message so many times (with different user ids) and eventually it'll be ripped off the face of the earth.

      Want to know the top Yik Yaks posted in an area? You can exactly do that. I was planning on making an publicly available service that you were able to pin a specific area/location and get all the top messages in that area, but got too lazy.

      I'm giving you all the possibilities because I'm sure nobody will be utilizing this API anytime soon.

      --
      "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
    46. Re:Baking political correctness in society by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Racist, homophobic and misogynist "yaks" have generated controversy

      It may be distasteful and offensive to some...but it is still protected and free speech, as long as you aren't threatening anyone with direct harm.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    47. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are times where I will take on a devil's advocate rule.

      For example, with the pro 2A types, I warn them that as people move in from different countries that have extremely strict firearm regulation, these times of open carry are numbered, as the immigrants will be voting for what they think is child safety.

      For the "reasonable gun control" camp, I warn them about the lessons of prohibition and the War on Drugs... marijuana is banned, and billions is spent to find, catch and put people in jail. With guns, people will still get them... and the gangs who will be providing this will definitely be armed. And we all knows what happens if the only party are the police and the gangbangers being armed. On Slashdot, I read posts about Venezuela going to 1/1000 of its pre-crime rate after they passed a blanket ban on citizens owning/buying/selling firearms... but in reality, they are still the murder capitol of the world.

      Both camps hate my guts... but they need to learn that there are many factors other than what Bloomberg or the NRA will feed them.

    48. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The words are just symbols. The emotions you attach to them are your own. The problem is projection:

      Back when I was in school, we had a rash of bomb threats. All fake.

      But every time, they evacuated the school. Instead of being in a nice warm building we shivered outside in the cold.

      Eventually, they caught the kid responsible for doing this.

      Was his free speech violated because he was arrested for making those threats?

      Fast forward to modern times.....

      Now here are some cases below, where threats were made, and some students were arrested

      http://www.collegian.psu.edu/n...

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      Were their free speech rights violated?

      If someone calls you and tells you there is a bomb planted in your house are you going to ignore it? Was the person just exercising their free speech to get you all freaked out and leave the place?

      People get so confused about free speech. It's always good to remember the old adage - The rights of your fist end abruptly at my face. Purposeful disruption by threats of violence are never appropriate.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    49. Re:Baking political correctness in society by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      OK, Try listening to some television recorded in the 1970s or 1980s and then listen to today's equivalent. Back then, people would identify each other by ethnicity and criticize each other openly. Nada today. Demonstrates a clear censorship, and calling it 'self-censorship' is bullshit, it's a centrally mandated process. Everyone feels better, right? But when anonymity is achieved, as in trolls on the net and this service, people show their true colors.

      Funny, I still speak pretty much the SAME way I used to speak in the 70's and 80's....

      I don't do any more self censorship than I did back then.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    50. Re: Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thing is yik yak isn't being threatened... At all. He didn't mean social responsibility to be law suits etc. He meant it to be a genuine need to be civil if the government was getting involved that'd be another issue but they aren't.

    51. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      It's the classic harsh internet reality that society doesn't like to face. To have true free speech, you must have anonymity.

      But you see grasshopper - no one ever has completely free speech. Never did, never will.

      True free speech is like true socialism, or true communism or true capitalism. Won't work, because of inherent flaws of any ideology. So basically, you're let alone as long as you aren't promoting violence or sending in threats. Start up with that shit, and the boom lowers.

      pssst - you aren't really anonymous on the web.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    52. Re:Baking political correctness in society by lgw · · Score: 3, Informative

      Threats of violence are not covered.

      Threats of violence are absolutely covered, if a reasonable person would not take the threat seriously. That's the part the speech-banners and fascists keep forgetting. It would be difficult to release a violent work of fiction otherwise (or would you like to ban those too? video games too maybe?).

      We seriously need to stop being so scared all the time. That is the root of all this growing totalitarianism. Simple fear and cowardice.

      I saw a very attractive woman at breakfast this morning. In that definition I self-censored myself from trying to engage in sex with her.

      I saw one too, and did have sex with her! Dating is fun. But we were talking about free speech - you have to be on the kooky end of the left to conflate speech with rape, which I guess is what you meant?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    53. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Using anonymous speech to say things that are harmful to OTHERS is cowardly and generally speaking not protected by the First Amendment nor should it.

      Speech can only harm a person if it is credible. (E.g., I start a credible rumor about you, your reputation is damaged.) Anonymous speech is not credible.

      I mostly agree, but the anonymity aspect isn't quite right

      let me give examples:

      Back in the '70s when I was in High school we had bomb threats sent in by telepone. Never real, but we had to evacuate the building every time. They caught the kid doing it eventually after several weeks. I don't think he had much of a free speech defense, but he was sending anonymously.

      Let's take a Yik-Yak case. A Penn State student using Yik-Yak posted a threat to shoot up the campus. He was caught by another student who made a screenshot and alerted Campus Police. Quite a kerfuffle ensued. No campus wants to be the next Virginia Tech massacre site.

      So I'd say these anonymous folks are causing damage.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    54. Re:Baking political correctness in society by internerdj · · Score: 1

      I was wondering what got you on double secret probation. I was on secret probation once. I didn't find out until suspension that I was ever on probation.

    55. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bomb threat is NOT free speech by anyone's standard.

    56. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because conservatives have not historically done the same thing? What was that about Bush and free speech zones, what about conservatives claiming anything in the name of national security, including stifling speech. How about we step back from the partisan line and realize it's actually just the class in power trying to stifle the voice of those not in power. It's class warfare.

    57. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was wondering what got you on double secret probation. I was on secret probation once. I didn't find out until suspension that I was ever on probation.

      Nothing much:

      dropped a whole truckload of fizzies into the varsity swim meet

      delivered the medical school cadavers to the alumni dinner

      filled trees with underwear every Halloween

      toilets exploding in the spring

      As a result, seven years of college down the drain.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    58. Re:Baking political correctness in society by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are simply 100% against free speech, is the point.

      Only deeply offensive speech needs protection - the freedom of agreeable speech is meaningless. There is no gap between "banning hate speech" and "ending free speech". The former is simply a euphemism for the latter.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    59. Re:Baking political correctness in society by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Death/mass violence threats are not a political correctness issue. They are a criminal issue. That kind of trolling is not pushing people's buttons, it's causing the university to expend significant resources protecting people, harming their business as people leave or are unable to study, causing people harm through stress. It's way beyond just being a dick, it's being a criminal.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    60. Re:Baking political correctness in society by c · · Score: 1

      I don't object to references to raping my daughter and leaving her in a bloody pile in a ditch because it's politically incorrect.

      No, but you also don't issue a press release saying how the entire community is just aghast at the whole business and how you're going to host a conference to talk about "healing", do you?

      If they said something sufficiently heinous, you might try to track the fucker down and kick his ass (i.e. how "talking shit" was generally handled up until around the 70's), or perhaps something like Curt Schilling. In other words, a response based on going directly after the perpetrator. Direct threats are something for law enforcement to handle.

      A "politically correct" response, on the other hand, is rooted in the idea that all we need is a bit more education and a lot more censorship.

      Education will probably work in the very long run, unless it's so ridiculously heavy-handed that it becomes parody and propaganda. Censorship will work for a short while until the next mole pops its head up. The gaps in between the short and long term is where the trolls live.

      I don't know what the ideal solution to trolls is, but I'm positive that ineffective hand-wringing isn't it, nor is trying to engage them in healing dialogue.

      I'm pretty sure that effective, but not excessive, discipline where they can be caught is one necessary aspect (we tend to fail pretty badly as "not excessive" when discipline actually happens). Having society be just generally more resilient to offensive (and particularly anonymous) speech is absolutely critical.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    61. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      What you call self-censorship I would call being civil. A society establishes rules and norms for behaviors it considers acceptable, and individuals are still free to act contrary to those norms; however such actions are subject to the condemnation of society at large.

      I tend to agree in general, and I'd be the last person to make a racist comment/etc. However, one thing that does disturb me is that with the advent of social media and such a passing comment can get turned into a national movement.

      If somebody makes a racist comment to somebody, they SHOULD be called out for it. If it was unintentional, then they SHOULD apologize and say so.

      My problem is that you get things like somebody posting something offensive in twitter and it turns into global campaigns to get somebody blacklisted from any kind of professional job for the rest of their life. That isn't the right solution to the problem either, and I think it tends to result in the kinds of anonymous outlash you see here, though much of it is just idiots being idiots.

      I wish I had a better solution to offer though - I don't think that this kind of behavior is at all acceptable. I just think that as with many offenses the punishments we hand out only make things worse.

    62. Re:Baking political correctness in society by asylumx · · Score: 2

      Saying the wrong thing that offends someone on a college campus these days will get you kicked out faster than banging Dean Wormer's wife.

      What's wrong with that? Freedom of expression doesn't have anything to do with freedom from the consequences of being a jackass.

    63. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Falos · · Score: 1

      Those aren't being censored. FoS doesn't override property laws, or laws against endangering human life.

      FoS doesn't override anything. It means you won't be censored, is all.

      If you'll excuse me, someone somewhere is dropping the "shouting FIRE in a theater" line (which is prohibited-but-not-censored for endangering human life)

    64. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Liberals are just as happy to sensor speech that they do not like because it is pro-Christian/American or anti-Muslim/Mexican/foreign sounding.

      FTFY

      Sure, but nobody lumped together liberals and libertarians, which was what the post was complaining about. All three groups are fairly distinct, with some overlapping areas of agreement.

    65. Re:Baking political correctness in society by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Demonstrates a clear censorship, and calling it 'self-censorship' is bullshit, it's a centrally mandated process.

      Is it? Some places have laws against certain forms of racism, but some don't and racism is on the decline in those places too. Seems more like it is just people shunning those they don't like, i.e. peer pressure. Now allowing people to express their dissatisfaction that way would be censorship.

      This is a classic balance of rights. Gay people have a right to be treated equally. Other people have a right to express their dislike of that 5% of the population right up to the point it starts violating gay people's rights. The only other option is an extreme form of freedom where there is no protection from anything for anyone but most people don't seem to want that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    66. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually (and this is a pet peeve of mine), "shouting FIRE in a theater" is NOT prohibited. The SCOTUS case from which this example is drawn was OVERTURNED by a later SCOTUS case as being the perfect example of prior restraint, which *is* prohibited.

      You are perfectly free to shout 'fire' in a theater. You are not, however, protected from being punished for any resulting harm if there was not *actually* a fire in said theater. Even if the ensuing stampede kills dozens, you still won't be prosecuted for your words. Instead you'll be prosecuted for wantonly and recklessly inciting panic, and negligent homicide.

    67. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To Conservatives:
      There is no war on Christianity in a country that is majority Christian. Sorry, but even atheists celebrate Christmas because who doesn't like presents?
      If you have a Confederate flag anyone on your property, you are immediately less American than someone who does not. You're celebrating being anti-American.
      Stop trying to force Christianity onto people who are not Christians. They are allowed to be different, just as you are allowed to be different.
      Stop pretending to be small government and then intruding on my privacy.

      To Liberals
      Some people think what you do at home is icky, that's their right.
      No one cares how smart you are if you're a jerk.
      It doesn't matter if you're right if you can't make it a sound byte.

      To Libertarians
      If you keep voting Republican, you're Republican. You're what the Green-Rainbow party is to Democrats.
      No one cares what you think when you keep turning out to be hypocrites or the guy the just shows up to the party to talk about how much he hates parties.

      To everyone
      For the love of Emma Watson can we please stop talking down/past one another and grow up?
      Just because someone has an opinion on something doesn't mean they are stifling yours because it's against your opinion.
      Just because they have a different opinion doesn't mean they are stupid.
      There are fact, there are misunderstandings, and there are lies. It's your job to check your facts before you open your mouth or begin to type.
      Never write/speak emotionally you may say things you don't mean or that are best left unsaid.
      You're kind of awesome...have a great day.

    68. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange, looking over my news and all I see is conservatives trying to silence people's speech over corporation's speech.

    69. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with your posit is that the definition of what a reasonable person would take seriously is not defined, and in reality it's that way for a reason, specifically because some people will act on what most other people consider unreasonable. The fact that people are unreasonable is an unfortunate fact of being human.

      I don't think the definition was meant to have anything to do with rape. I think the example was inadequately trying to explain that we self censor ourselves out of civility, because most of us realize that there is a time and a place where our ideas are best received. Civility is self-imposed censorship with the intent of allowing everyone freedom to be themselves, save when it would lead to infringing upon the happiness and rights of others.

    70. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "who is making the argument that we should "sacrifice free speech for a better society"?"

      You cannot be serious. When did the laughable phrase "hate speech" come into existence? Who bandies it about, day after day, as if it is somehow a real 'thing'? Why, the eternal JEW, the nation-wreckers...

      The Jew is trying to take away your free speech, hence the laughable use of the magic word "racist" in the article - "racist" meaning "White people not going along with the Jewish program to genocide them out of existence by opening the borders of their countries to millions of non-whites"...

    71. Re:Baking political correctness in society by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      You're not talking about freedom of speech. You're talking about freedom from the consequences of your speech. Freedom of speech does not and has never meant freedom from the consequences.

    72. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom of speech does not mean you can come into my hose by force and demand I listen to you rant about Jeebus.

      Freedom of speech does not allow you to call 911 and swat me.

      Freedom of speech does not allow you to make fraudulent bomb threats ot terrorist threats.

      Threats of violence are not covered.

      Strawman arguments are lies.

    73. Re:Baking political correctness in society by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If someone threatens to kill you and demonstrates that they are near by and know some things about you (like your real name) then the logical thing to do is take defensive action. That's not an emotional response, it's a pragmatic one. It also causes law enforcement to expend resources protecting that individual.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    74. Re:Baking political correctness in society by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Do you have any concrete, verifiable examples of this that you can cite? Universities in Europe are not like that, but maybe US ones are so I'm asking.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    75. Re:Baking political correctness in society by i_ate_god · · Score: 2

      Conservatives are front and centre when it comes to increasing the police state. How is that supporting freedom of speech?

      --
      I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    76. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Words may be symbols, but attention leads to actions. A man muttering along garners no force, but when surrounded by those who would listen, much can change.

    77. Re:Baking political correctness in society by WaffleMonster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If somebody makes a racist comment to somebody, they SHOULD be called out for it. If it was unintentional, then they SHOULD apologize and say so.

      The need to "call people out" for saying something you don't agree with or that offends you is a key contributor to social problems you have enumerated.

      All those shouting intolerance will not be tolerated with a straight face oblivious to the irony of their remarks are only contributing to an increasingly less free brittle society.

      When people learn to respect the racist and the crackpot as much as they dislike their remarks then and only then will real progress have been made.

    78. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you are really slow. Try to graduate high school before posting with the adults, son.

    79. Re:Baking political correctness in society by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's much easier than that. Just call the cops. Cops get a subpoena, Yik Yak coughs up the details of the poster. The idiot who posts a threat on this kind of service is easier to find than someone who called one in from a pay phone or slipped a note under the admin building door.

      The article seems to be conflating actual threats and random idiot posts to try and claim that this thing is dangerous. It "creates a destructive environment." Personally, having YouTube and Slashdot -1 comments streamed direct to my phone sounds horrible, but I guess some people get off on that. If you don't, don't use the app.

    80. Re:Baking political correctness in society by davydagger · · Score: 1
      Its almost as if we should be discussing the larger problems in society that lead people to rape eachother rather than trying to lock down speech.

      Lets face it, rape is endemic on campuses, and endemic among athletes and all the people are are told are good upstanding people in society, so we don't do anything about it. Do you want to really prevent rapes? Lets hold a conversation about rape and other forms of violence, instead of trying to sweep it under the rug with censorship. Lets discuss openly the problems.

      Yik-Yak's policy is to comply with legally binding orders to fork over data, which is fair. I see no reason that the school should not have to get warrants and court orders if people believe there is a legitimate threat. Going to the police can get those orders. I am not comfortable with a system that monitors people without court orders, and court orders that are not based on reasonible suspicion. This is a huge problem right now, and pretending mass survailence will stop rape is a big misnomer.

      What this typical for mainstream news article is being hysterical about is demanding we fork over freedoms

    81. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, It's like my grandpa used to say when he was a poll worker back in the 50's. "Sure, you can vote, nigger. And then tonight we can burn your dumb nigger house down." You see, freedom comes with consequences. Grandpa taught them that. He was big on teaching civics to those who needed a lesson in it.

    82. Re:Baking political correctness in society by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      Spraypainting racial slurs wouldn't be hate speech in most places, with the possible very specific exceptions of places like Germany with things like Naziism.

      Where I live, the hate speech laws require that you're inciting violence against a particular group. So "lefties suck" wouldn't be hate speech, but "kill all lefties" could be.

      You could argue that spray painting racial slurs falls afoul of the "fighting words" clause in the US first amendment, except that judicial precedent pretty much papers over that bit.

    83. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey I found one of those trolls they were talking about above.

      PS A video game or fictional story about violence is not the same as threatening a real person with violence, which I guess is what you were incapable of grasping?

    84. Re:Baking political correctness in society by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      Do you have any concrete, verifiable examples of this that you can cite?

      Quite a few. Here is just one: Matthew Werenczak.

      Would you like some more?

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    85. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Victor+Liu · · Score: 1

      And what if those aggressions and hatreds were directed at you or people you cared about? What if those anonymous comments threatened harm? How lightly then are you willing to take it? There's definitely a balance that needs to be struck between free speech and its control, and it seems to me Yik Yak does more harm than good.

    86. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whistleblowers are cowards and shouldn't have First Amendment protection.

      100% Insightful. gg slashdot.

    87. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Instead of being in a nice warm building we shivered outside in the cold.

      My God, that's horrific! Clearly we must have strong controls on speech to stop anyone suffering such terrible trauma again!

    88. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "web" as a whole needs a better way to combat trolls and haters. We need to take away those people's "platform" so their message gets out to as few people as possible. I'm toying with the idea of Github's "forking" model where a conversation forks at each reply. You can choose which fork you want to follow - maybe the most popular fork or maybe one selected on an individual reply. Less popular opinions (eg. hate speech) thereby fall by the wayside for more rational people.
      I'd be happy to hear input on this train of thought.

    89. Re:Baking political correctness in society by sexconker · · Score: 1

      OK, Try listening to some television recorded in the 1970s or 1980s and then listen to today's equivalent. Back then, people would identify each other by ethnicity and criticize each other openly. Nada today. Demonstrates a clear censorship, and calling it 'self-censorship' is bullshit, it's a centrally mandated process. Everyone feels better, right? But when anonymity is achieved, as in trolls on the net and this service, people show their true colors.

      Being oblivious to the process doesn't mean it didn't happen.

      If anyone wants to see a perfect example of this in action, watch The Bad News Bears then watch Bad News Bears.

    90. Re:Baking political correctness in society by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a bipartisan issue. The liberals want to ban things they don't like and so do the conservatives. Free speech is fine as long as you don't say things that aren't acceptable. I remember that people used to have much thicker skin though about 4 or 5 decades ago. Now if you hurt someone's feelings it's the end of the world. I'm pretty sure the world wont end with a bang or a whimper but a whine.

    91. Re:Baking political correctness in society by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I'd guess he meant that he didn't go over and ask her "How about a blow job, bitch." Not uttering that statement is self censorship. Or maybe just self preservation.

    92. Re:Baking political correctness in society by sexconker · · Score: 1

      This isn't a call for censorship. Yik-Yak is a private company with social responsibility. Censorship does not apply if there is no government action involved. This is just private agreement between responsible adults.

      Yik-Yak has no "social responsibility". There is no such thing as a "social contract", by the way. Here in the real world we have actual contracts and laws. Not liberal make believe bullshit. The government does not have to be involved for censorship to be censorship. Censorship is censorship, regardless of who does it.

    93. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...To have true free speech, you must have anonymity...

      Incorrect. Anonymity is for cowards. You should not fear your words being attributed to you, if you do, perhaps you should keep your pie hole shut.

    94. Re:Baking political correctness in society by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Haha - Republicans are evil.

    95. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're retarded.
      Threatening someone is speech, and it is covered by the 1st amendment (ALL speech is).
      When credible threats are made cops are supposed to investigate and determine if there is real danger and the state is supposed to prosecute only if there are actual crimes committed.

    96. Re:Baking political correctness in society by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      I want to force government to force people to listen to my insane ranting about the fact that nobody listens to me.

    97. Re:Baking political correctness in society by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It's not that you have to respect anybody. It's simply better to let * identify themselves with public rants.

      Crypto (fascists/communists/racists/socialists/gun grabbers/Baptists/Mormons/HOA boards) are worse then the open version.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    98. Re:Baking political correctness in society by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      I need you to install some special hardware and software at your desk.

      So I actually can 'stab you in the eye' over the internet.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    99. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't make any difference which granfalloon you want to try to lump your opponents into. The word doesn't matter. The mental process of dehumanizing people and assigning bad qualities to them, especially in the context of politics, is a defect of logic.

    100. Re:Baking political correctness in society by davydagger · · Score: 1
      There is no such thing as "true socialism" because its litterally dozens of entirely unrelated ideas who only share their disgust for capitalism, and desire for a worker run society without bosses.

      Some of these societies are filled with justice, some are simply oppressive states, sans the usual motives of profit, heridtary, and race.

    101. Re:Baking political correctness in society by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      Look at it as an insight into how people REALLY feel--when they're not compelled by threat of expulsion/arrest/harassment to be polite and politically correct.

      The other harsh reality is that the source of easily +90% of this garbage is spewed from the orifices of white men, symmetrically bell-curving around college age.

    102. Re: Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the way original Sesame Street episodes are now For Adults Only?

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesame_Street:_Old_School

    103. Re:Baking political correctness in society by c · · Score: 1

      Death/mass violence threats are not a political correctness issue. They are a criminal issue.

      Sure. And if speech crosses the line to become a real criminal matter, then by all means treat it as a criminal matter.

      That doesn't change the fact that in 99.99% (or more) cases the motivation is to get a rise out of society rather than the aggression or hatred the parent post was blaming.

      At the same time, institutions hyper-sensitivity where even perfectly innocent and reasonable behaviour gets perceived as a threat ("OMG! Someone's walking towards the art department carrying something in a long bag! Call 911!") and the complete lack of sanctions for gross over-reactions has basically turned trolling into an instant denial of service.

      There's gotta be a balance. Right now, the way things are structured, we're letting the trolls run the show and just reacting. Poorly.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    104. Re:Baking political correctness in society by silas_moeckel · · Score: 2

      Hate speech laws are broken as they make nonviolent speech a crime. They do not require that it was intended to cause panic (the classic shouting fire in a crowded theater) or instruct others to do harm. It makes a crime of failing to use PC speech.

      In your example neither should be more than defacing public property.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    105. Re:Baking political correctness in society by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      That is in many ways the issue of our times.
      You can not "make" hate go away. You can make it become invisible.
      Of course the Internet in general has caused a terrible magnification effect. A few people that act very badly now have center stage.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    106. Re:Baking political correctness in society by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Who is? Those creating the campus 'controversy'. They're the first to proclaim it's used for nothing but bullying and 'discrimination.'

    107. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of them are just trolls.

      Says who?

    108. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Back when I was in school, we had a rash of bomb threats. All fake.

      Our school got bombed.

      It's ok though, the terrorists were funded by Americans, so it all worked out in the end.

    109. Re:Baking political correctness in society by ckatko · · Score: 1

      >What you call self-censorship I would call being civil.

      And what you call being civil, I call "having respect for each other."

      We live in a world that has zero respect for each other and instead of treating that toxicity, we're regulating what can and cannot be said in order to provide a feel good, politically correct, layer of bullshit on the top. It's a soccer mom society with all of the behind-the-scenes backstabbing, jealousy, and hatred still going on. The home is full of hatred, but at least the lawn looks nice!

      Look at Hollywood. They still hire black people. They still fill them into specific, black roles. They just can't call it that anymore. So they use whitewash acceptable words to find them. The underlying problem of "use black people to do stereotypical black people things" has not changed. It has only made them more sneaky in how they go about it.

      By treating the symptom and not the issues causing those symptoms, we're all getting more and more bitter with each other. And as a consequence of us not treating the problems, eventually some people snap. And what do we do? We shame them or toss them in jail as if they're some form of anomaly and not the clear result of culture that spends all its effort looking like it cares instead of actually caring.

      This is another branch of the same tree that gave us homeless elimination programs where we kicked all those nasty homeless people out of our cities. Tossed them in jails. Pushed them into other cities. As long as we didn't have to look at the mentally-disabled people, we won't feel bad anymore, and we won't have to deal with the fact our system, our culture, and our individual actions all contributed to those people becoming destitute.

      I was discussing with a co-worker that many companies are now allowing people to bring their dogs in. Dogs give a clear, scientifically backed reduction in stress. Dogs also help many handicapped people deal with anxiety problems and panic attacks. (I personally know people who they help significantly.) Meanwhile, this guy has dog allergies and he said it would be intolerant for someone to bring a dog around him.

      So, how about instead of a system of "I'm more handicapped then you, and I get my way", we actually just respect for each other? I don't bring my dog around you, and you don't ban me from having a dog that helps me. We work together to come to a compromise that benefits both of us based on our mutual respect for each other.

      No amount of HR laws are going to be able to accomplish what I just described. Because without respect, there would be power grabs, and back stabbing using the HR system (we've all seen it happen.). Laws of conduct cannot regulate respect. You don't use a band-aid to fix someone's kidney. You don't use laws to make people respect each other.

    110. Re:Baking political correctness in society by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Of course. I have noticed that South Park (for example) does not ever, ever, skewer all races, cultures, societies, genders etc. in a humourous way. Never, ever. They would never get away with it in this color blind, rainbow society! Oh, but your are talking about regular TV. Who watches that anymore?

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    111. Re:Baking political correctness in society by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      All hail Unreconstructed Man!

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
    112. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Thing is, you've demonstrated by your combined examples that Yik-Yak is utterly irrelevant as the medium: Some twat acts like a twat, consequences ensue.

      Yik-Yak are as culpable as the telephone system, or the tree I post my missing cat picture on.

    113. Re:Baking political correctness in society by xevioso · · Score: 1

      This is a distinction without a difference. You recklessly incited panic through your words, your speech. If you are fined for that by the government, then it's not free speech, and in essence you are not "free" to shout fire in a theater.

    114. Re:Baking political correctness in society by operagost · · Score: 1

      Liberal folks, this is your issue. The conservatives and libertarians are all over preserving the right to speech. Where is your support for the same?

      Like caffeine in 7up, never had it-- never will.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    115. Re:Baking political correctness in society by ckatko · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Except you have very tiny eyes.

      Are you completely unfamiliar with liberal's modern tactic of trying to get anyone they disagree with fired? By calling anyone they disagree with a bigot?

      How can there be freedom of speech when your means to provide for yourself might be attacked? Fear is their tactic for forcing self-censorship. Instead of debating your ideals on equal grounds, they try to get you thrown onto the street. Why? Because they can't defend their values on equal grounds because they're fucking domestic terrorists.

      Remember the ESA scientist with the "oppressive" shirt? The shy, introverted guy who contributed to space history who they made cry on national television because they convinced him he was sexist? Is that the kind of freedom of speech you want to live in? You may agree with everything they've done. But I ask you this: How long before they come for you?

    116. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you call self-censorship I would call being civil.

      It's a very colonial attitude, authoritarians hiding behind "civility." It will keep coming up, but it's all bullshit, just syntactic sugar for control. Being in favour of free speech means being in favour of awful speech that you hate. All dictators are in favour of speech they like.

    117. Re: Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the parent comment. Somehow generation Y should stand for generation Whiners about being offended. Everyone in this country has the right to never ever be offended by anyone else. It's like if your hypersensitive to germs you're actually weaker. People who are hypersensitive to evil remarks are weaker. But never being offended isn't how the world really works and ya'll can go fuck yourselves.

    118. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Microlith · · Score: 1

      The need to "call people out" for saying something you don't agree with or that offends you is a key contributor to social problems you have enumerated.

      So we should just let people spout bullshit unquestioned?

      When people learn to respect the racist and the crackpot as much as they dislike their remarks then and only then will real progress have been made.

      By "respect" you mean "let them have their way" and "stop criticizing their statements," right?

    119. Re:Baking political correctness in society by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I had a read through that and it seems that he was allowed back once the situation had been sorted out. Are you saying there should not have been an investigation into a comment that does, superficially, appear to be at odds with the institution's policy on diversity?

      Some random black guy pointed out that they could do with hiring some black teachers. This guy wets his pants and goes into a mini rant about how the mere suggestion that more black teachers are needed is somehow racist (wtf). It gets sorted out. It's hardly the huge conspiracy you were alluding to.

      So yeah, more examples please.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    120. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Microlith · · Score: 1

      Free speech is fine as long as you don't say things that aren't acceptable.

      Oh, you have the right to say whatever you want without the government arresting you for it. That doesn't mean society can't turn around and point out you're wrong, or being a jackass, or whatever.

      I remember that people used to have much thicker skin though about 4 or 5 decades ago.

      4 or 5 decades ago puts you into periods where racism and legally enforced discrimination was rampant. Take off the rose tinted glasses and you'll realize the past was rife with shittiness.

      Now if you hurt someone's feelings it's the end of the world. I'm pretty sure the world wont end with a bang or a whimper but a whine.

      Oh poor you, unable to treat people like shit and get away with it anymore. You're just doomed, aren't you?

    121. Re: Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5% ? Tell me more...

    122. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Microlith · · Score: 1

      That's the part the speech-banners and fascists keep forgetting.

      Because, of course, it's your right to harass and threaten people! Just don't take it seriously and you'll see that my explicit description of violent acts towards you and your family are just jokes, really!

      It would be difficult to release a violent work of fiction otherwise (or would you like to ban those too? video games too maybe?).

      Surely there's a difference between descriptions of violence within artistic works, and sending graphic descriptions of violence (sometimes accompanied with names and addresses) to specific people?

    123. Re:Baking political correctness in society by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      ...none of the good? Dude, we no longer have governors of states saying "Segregation forever". We have had tons and tons of good. Oh, the racists are scared in public and decide to hide under their covers when they spout their racism? Good, good, good.

    124. Re: Baking political correctness in society by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      Yes. Sort of like the way laboring in factories all day long is now For Adults Only.

    125. Re: Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5 percent? Tell me more.

    126. Re:Baking political correctness in society by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      Racists have the same legal rights to say their racist bits that they've always had. What changed is that society now frowns on racism, so the racists are embarrassed -- rightly so.

      Society progressed with no loss of freedom. That is all good and no bad.

    127. Re:Baking political correctness in society by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      "When people learn to respect the racist and the crackpot"

      That seems odd to me. What is the argument for respecting racists and crackpots?

    128. Re: Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference between free speech and government funded leftist bullshit...

    129. Re:Baking political correctness in society by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      "Being civil" is merely an appeal to 'manners' which is in turn an appeal to defense of feelings. The problem occurs when facts and truth are denied for the sake of them. People label people assholes all the time for speaking unpopular truth.

    130. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Threats of violence are absolutely covered, if a reasonable person would not take the threat seriously. That's the part the speech-banners and fascists keep forgetting.

      I worked with a guy like you one time. He didn't actually pay attention, but would interrupt based on certain words others said. Ended up firing him because he was always trying to argue about things we weren't talking about. Never got anything done.

      It would be difficult to release a violent work of fiction otherwise (or would you like to ban those too?

      Seriously, do you think I'm talking about literature? Why I'm not! I'm talking about the subject under discussion here, which is that people are anonymously sending out threats to shoot up college campuses and other violent acts.

      And now, just like that guy, you have taken my desire to punish people for threatening to shoot up a campus or bomb buildings and equate it with banning books. So tell me comrade, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Surely wasn't something I wrote.

      We seriously need to stop being so scared all the time. That is the root of all this growing totalitarianism. Simple fear and cowardice.

      And now I'm a coward too? Seriously man, try less coffee, and I really don't believe you had sex with anyone because you're quite the little prick.

      I saw one too, and did have sex with her! Dating is fun. But we were talking about free speech - you have to be on the kooky end of the left to conflate speech with rape, which I guess is what you meant?

      Crikeys.

      And he scores the trifecta of being a jerk, lack of comprehension, and now determining my political persuasion from that poor comprehension. No, sorry weedhopper, not a left winger. I pick and choose depending on what actually works, sometimes looking conservative, some times not - more pragmatic than idealistic. If you call that left wing, you would have to be extreme hard right.

      My point is that in a civilized society, whether that be of liberal or conservative, there are some basic rules of civil engagement. Nothing more, nothing less. Included in those rules are society's reactions to threats of violence. That has a lot to do with the fact that often these threats are followed by actions. If you were to threaten to kill me, you can bet I'd take the threat seriously, and vice versa. Self restraint or self censorship, all the same thing. Some would call it manners, which in this day and age, are too often confused with weakness.

      And it's been that way for a long, long time, not just since the totalitarians in your mind have been at work. We can call each other names all day, no problem - I like strong discussions. Just not threats. You can call me whatever you like, and I'll respond in kind.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    131. Re:Baking political correctness in society by lgw · · Score: 1

      Because, of course, it's your right to harass and threaten people! Just don't take it seriously and you'll see that my explicit description of violent acts towards you and your family are just jokes, really!

      How many people have threatened to kill their boss in a moment of stress? It's not a credible threat. If my kid threatens your kid with the power of the One Ring, do you take that seriously (that was just last month, remember)? If I threaten to bring down the Moon to crash into your house, are you worried (I think that one was last year)? Most threats ever made are not credible, they're merely a stress blow-off. Credible threats rarely take the form of anonymous, over-the-top trolling.

      Surely there's a difference between descriptions of violence within artistic works, and sending graphic descriptions of violence (sometimes accompanied with names and addresses) to specific people?

      Oh, "artistic works", is it? As judged by whom? If a reasonable person would find a threat credible, that justifies further investigation, but the speech is still entirely protected. Unless there's an overt act to turn the words into criminal conspiracy, the speech should be protected. And maybe you should be less afraid of the world.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    132. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The problem with your posit is that the definition of what a reasonable person would take seriously is not defined, and in reality it's that way for a reason, specifically because some people will act on what most other people consider unreasonable.

      Yes, some people will feel threatened by very little. That's why we have houses in gated communities protected by ADT, and with safe rooms in them.

      I'm trying to imagine someone not taking seriously a threat to commit mass murder on a college campus. But some self styled "libertarians" seem to want to protect the rights of possible mass murders under anarchistic definitions of free speech.

      I don't think the definition was meant to have anything to do with rape. I think the example was inadequately trying to explain that we self censor ourselves out of civility

      Exactly. The inherent nature of civilization is that we do not enjoy perfect freedom. I am not frre to break in your house, or do you harm, or other completely disruptive actions. Restrictions on my freedoms and yours, all of them.

      Actions like rape, murder, assault, theft, all of them are restrictions - perhaps for a good reason? And I have absolutely no problems with further restricting the freedom of people who threaten to kill other people, as this very subject is about.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    133. Re:Baking political correctness in society by notbob · · Score: 0

      I'll take my freedom of speech and deal with having to read some things I don't like to not give up my right to be heard in society at large.

      No censorship has ever helped anyone, if someone is truly posting something so profane then maybe as a society we should be looking at the root cause of that anger to begin with?

      Think of how much hate speech you wouldn't have to tolerate from either side of the globe if the US would quit playing in the sand pits of the middle east and focus on tending to her own people instead.

    134. Re:Baking political correctness in society by operagost · · Score: 1

      0.0

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    135. Re:Baking political correctness in society by operagost · · Score: 1

      Mid-century progressives like FDR renamed themselves "liberals" in the USA because by that time, Progressivism had rightfully acquired a bad name through its association with scientific racism, class warfare, and eugenics.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    136. Re:Baking political correctness in society by andydread · · Score: 1

      Free speech only applies to government and that's it Go read the constitution before bellowing rubbish in here. Free speech means the government cannot censor your speech.

    137. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying there should not have been an investigation into a comment that does, superficially, appear to be at odds with the institution's policy on diversity?

      I think he's say he shouldn't have been removed in the first place since the investigation never found he did anything wrong.

      Are you saying it's ok for the police to punish and torture you even after they found they have no case against you?

      Some random black guy pointed out that they could do with hiring some black teachers. This guy wets his pants and goes into a mini rant about how the mere suggestion that more black teachers are needed is somehow racist (wtf).

      Right, that guy should have stayed expelled, like that woman who wet her panties overhearing a joke between two random guys in a private conservation, and ranted about it as sexist (wtf)

    138. Re:Baking political correctness in society by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Nor does the existence of threats of violence justify treating all 'undesired' speech as though they are threats just to shut it down.

    139. Re:Baking political correctness in society by NotDrWho · · Score: 0

      He was allowed back only once the press got a hold of the story and the University was embarrassed. The only thing "sorted out" was that Syracuse University are a bunch of PC bullies who got caught expelling a student for free speech and reluctantly had to backtrack only after getting called on it in the national media.

      But then again, you're a SJW who won't be convinced no matter what. So fuck off. There are tons of other examples, but you'll just do backflips to dismiss all of them because you're a ideologue who can't accept the truth. Violating PC speech codes will get you kicked out of college. If you're lucky, the national media might pick up on it and this might get you back in (eventually, after a lot of hassle and a fight). But the message has already been sent to anyone else thinking about speaking their mind--shut up or face expulsion.

      And again, fuck off, you SJW piece of dogshit. It's your kind that cause students across the country to keep their mouths shut in fear.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    140. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      "Being civil" is merely an appeal to 'manners' which is in turn an appeal to defense of feelings. The problem occurs when facts and truth are denied for the sake of them. People label people assholes all the time for speaking unpopular truth.

      There is a difference between speaking an unpopular truth and suggesting assulting someone. While both are, and justifiably so, protected speech there is. Adifference between the two. One can present an unpleasent truth without being an asshat. I realize some peopel would like to muzzle anyone tht speaks something they find disagreeable. They should not be allowed to do so anymore thn someone who is being an asshat should be free of consequences under the guise of free speech. You can say what you want but have to live with the consequences.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    141. Re: Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary alone presents several cases where collages/universities are proposing bans/outright banning the app. There is apparently also "concern" by collages/universities that they can't go after users of the service without justification (subpoena, warrant, law enforcement). Government is most certainly getting involved, heck in my state we vote for the board of regents of at least one of the universities. And if you don't think a ban is a threat what do you think would happen if you chained up the door of a business or posted an armed guard blocking entry of anyone into the establishment because that is effectively what you are doing with a ban on an app.

    142. Re:Baking political correctness in society by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Who gets to decide what 'asshattery' is? So many times people are labeled trolls for not towing the party line. The consequences should not be a smiting by the iron fist of great social justice.

    143. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a crock of BS.

      There are two correct reasons to judge another person critically: what they do and what they say. You can do stuff that's not illegal and you can say pretty much anything your brain dreams up, but you will be judged for it and that's reality.

      It's the way it SHOULD be, Buttercup.

      If you don't want to be considered a Cro-Magnon, you should reflect on the drivel that comes out of your pie hole. Suck it up, grow up, and accept responsibility for what you do and say rather than whining about respect. Respect is earned.

    144. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. You can say what you want. People will judge you for it and make decisions you might not like as a result if you are a jackass. Tough petunias!

    145. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I saw one too, and did have sex with her! Dating is fun.

      I saw you having sex with your Mom. The attractive woman was at the next table... :-)

    146. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but even atheists celebrate Christmas"

      From a historical perspective Christmas (or at least the date/time of year) has very little to do with Christianity. Its been a holiday for various non-christian religions/belief systems for thousands of years but was only "recognized" as a christian holiday to try to co-opt those cultures into Christianity. Knowing this I get a good laugh out of the talking bobble heads each year complaining when people use "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" as they're effectively celebrating on a "pagan" holiday while suggesting that others aren't christian (enough).

    147. Re:Baking political correctness in society by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      Comparing prohibition to reasonable gun control is dishonest. Prohibition is the exact opposite of reasonable controls.
      Reasonable gun control is not about banning guns. It never has been. It is about reasonable laws for safety. You have several violent crimes on your record? Maybe you should not be allowed to buy that grandfathered full auto UZI. This is reasonable. Prohibition is not.

    148. Re:Baking political correctness in society by nobuddy · · Score: 1

      It is entire;y subjective. You or I get to decide if someone is being an asshat or not.
      Conversely- if everyone you meet calls you an asshat you may want to consider that you are an asshat. If that is your goal- congratulations are in order.

    149. Re: Baking political correctness in society by dave3548 · · Score: 1

      That is seriously messed up. "Please, please lead me by the nose. I'm tired of thinking for myself."

    150. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Microlith · · Score: 2

      How many people have threatened to kill their boss in a moment of stress? It's not a credible threat.

      If it was done in a similar manner to much of the harassment being discussed, you'd be leaving threatening notes in their cube/office or on their voice mail.

      You'd be out pretty quick, or arrested.

      If my kid threatens your kid with the power of the One Ring, do you take that seriously (that was just last month, remember)?

      Of course not, because the One Ring isn't real and he's a kid. Mentally stunted manchildren who think it's funny to send death threats don't get that exception because it's completely different.

      Most threats ever made are not credible, they're merely a stress blow-off. Credible threats rarely take the form of anonymous, over-the-top trolling.

      Graphic, targeted descriptions of rape and threats of violence and/or death aren't in the same league ash what you described. Stop apologizing or attempting to minimize the acts of sociopaths.

      If a reasonable person would find a threat credible, that justifies further investigation, but the speech is still entirely protected.

      I don't think that point has been in contest here - my point is that it's stupid to say "you shouldn't take it seriously" when it's impossible to discern between idle threats and credible ones when assholes get creepy detailed.

      But, of course, its your first amendment right to make people's lives a living hell and terrorize them with threats. It's your right to be a miserable piece of shit who sees fit to send people messages describing them in detail, and the horrible things they'd like to do. And we shouldn't ever, ever do anything about it.

      Unless there's an overt act to turn the words into criminal conspiracy, the speech should be protected.

      Indeed, people should just turn a blind eye to vile harassment all day long. No one needs to worry until it's obviously too late.

      And maybe you should be less afraid of the world.

      Indeed, that guy threatening to rape and murder your kid because he hates you for some reason? Just ignore him. Don't be so afraid of targeted threats of death or rape. Because it's your fault that you're terrorized, not their fault for being sociopathic.

    151. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mid-century progressives like FDR renamed themselves "liberals" in the USA because by that time, Progressivism had rightfully acquired a bad name through its association with scientific racism, class warfare, and eugenics.

      In other words, Progressives are willing to learn from their mistakes, while their competitors... not so much.

      This explains why Progressives have been more successful than attempts to undo or even just slow it down. ObamaCare is still here. As is the debt, the drones, the three lettered organizations...

      Evil wins again because good is dumb.

    152. Re:Baking political correctness in society by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      you're a SJW

      You lose.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    153. Re:Baking political correctness in society by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The problem is when people bash hate laws as "hate speech laws". Extra punishment for death threats that come along with a burning cross should be punished more harshly than a "regular" death threat, though in practice, only threats against the president are taken seriously, without extenuating circumstances, and the burning cross is the extenuating circumstance.

      Or the gays that have been dragged to death behind a pickup truck, often with notes (sometimes carved into their skin) indicating a dislike for gay people.

      The idea is that such acts are domestic terrorism.

    154. Re:Baking political correctness in society by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I've had a conservative try to get me fired, but never had that happen from a Liberal. I'm middle of the road enough, that I piss both off, but only a conservative stalked me online to find my work and complain to them that I said things in support of a free Internet. Of course, working for an ISP that doesn't own any media companies, that was the official company line, so they didn't care. But he tried.

    155. Re:Baking political correctness in society by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Your displeasure with the law is moot.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    156. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet it allows you to intentionally offend me on a site that I usually enjoy. I hope you realize that intentionally mocking my religion is no better than dropping an n-word into your statement. I need to speak out against your bigotry because Christian lives matter.

    157. Re:Baking political correctness in society by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Or, we could simply look up the law and skip the irrelevant shit.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    158. Re:Baking political correctness in society by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      You don't get to make my point for me.

      Make your point and move on.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    159. Re:Baking political correctness in society by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Was galileo an asshat when he confronted the church? At the time, most would've said yes. This does not make him so.

    160. Re:Baking political correctness in society by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Disagreeing with a law is never moot, this is exactly the sort of things jurors can choose to refuse to convict on, in effect society's power to pardon the wrongly accused.

      We are making laws to get politicians elected, this does not make our society better. It's why we have the second highest percentage of people in jail in the world (with only a tiny island nation of 90k higher than us). People seem to forget we need the minimum amount of laws for us to live reasonably happily together not a special snowflake law for everything that might piss us off.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    161. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Who gets to decide what 'asshattery' is? So many times people are labeled trolls for not towing the party line. The consequences should not be a smiting by the iron fist of great social justice.

      Certainly not. The problem now is what used to be a loocal phenomena and can result in, as you put it, a smiting by the iron fist of great social justice, followed by a counter reaction to the smiters; resulting in consequences that go far beyond the initial event. Censorship is not the answer but I do not know what is.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    162. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      *Wow, who is making the argument that we should "sacrifice free speech for a better society"? That sounds positively Orwellian. Or something from China, where the government runs a massive censorship operation.*

      Read the comments in the NYT article. There are hundreds of them demanding just that. It's the scariest thing I've read in quite some time.

    163. Re:Baking political correctness in society by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Disagreeing is moot. Actively engaging to affect change is not moot.

      For me, Blizzards® are disgusting and should be banned in favour of root beer, but it's a moot point, I admit.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    164. Re:Baking political correctness in society by lgw · · Score: 1

      If a threat is credible, the police should investigate it. If the investigation shows more than just speech, then there's an actual crime. That's the system and it works.

      Where it goes wrong is where people freak out over non-credible threats, or worse the police do. By all means, if you think a particular threat is credible, involve the police. That's fine - still no freak-out required. But none of that justifies removing a forum for anonymous free speech.
         

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    165. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      How many people have threatened to kill their boss in a moment of stress?

      I know absolutely no one. And where I worked, if you threatened to kill your boss, you would be escorted out of the building until the police arrived. Never, not ever. Don't do it. If you are feeling stressed then take up a hobby like Ice Hockey. You will be calm after the games are over.

      My mother and father told me when I was a child to not ever ever threaten to kill someone, because I'd get into trouble, and if the person I threatened ever was killed, I'd be suspect number one. Really good advice, and I taught my son the same thing.

      If my kid threatens your kid with the power of the One Ring, do you take that seriously (that was just last month, remember)?

      That was school administrator stupidity, not law enforcement investigating a threat to see if it was credible.

      Most threats ever made are not credible, they're merely a stress blow-off. Credible threats rarely take the form of anonymous, over-the-top trolling.

      Seriously dude, ya gotta find a different way to handle stress than threatening to kill someone.

      All your examples prove is that there likely will be an investigation, and yes, most threats are not credible - in the end. But how do you know?

      Oh, "artistic works", is it? As judged by whom? If a reasonable person would find a threat credible, that justifies further investigation, but the speech is still entirely protected.

      Calm down sailor! You've been told by more people than me that there is a world of difference between fiction and real life. I play Diablo 3, and Christ - there is more bloodshed and body parts flying around than you can shake a stick at. But that is so remote from Joe blow telling me he's going to come over to my house and kill me while I sleep, and that you are grasping at straws. DIablo 3 is a violent fiction game, and so over the top that it would take a crazy person to think its a threat to anything but the characters in it (and they aren't real)

      Unless there's an overt act to turn the words into criminal conspiracy, the speech should be protected. And maybe you should be less afraid of the world.

      So what you are saying is that if the person who threatens to kill me should be ignored until they kill me. Umm - no. That's crazy talk.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    166. Re:Baking political correctness in society by lgw · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is that if the person who threatens to kill me should be ignored until they kill me. Umm - no. That's crazy talk.

      No, not at all. The system works like this: if you find the threat credible, talk to the police. If they find it credible they'll investigate. If the investigation reveals more than just speech, then there's an actual crime and someone goes to jail.

      What I'm saying is we need to get better at ignoring threats that aren't credible. And the default for anything at all on the internet, especially anything anonymous should be "not credible". Sure, if the threat is detailed enough, and seems meant in earnest, and otherwise seems credible, then get the police involved.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    167. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      What you are saying is we need to hire reputable clairvoyants. Because you demand knowing the threat's veracity before investigating it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    168. Re: Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old guy here, have never self censored. And what the fuck is that anyway?

    169. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about "political correctness"! Threatening rape, murder, mayhem, and more is an abomination not freedom. Freedom is freedom from attack, Freedom from fear, freedom to say things yes, but also freedom from having threats made against your body, property, and life.
      Dismissing Opposition to threats of violence as ninnydom is Repugnant.

    170. Re:Baking political correctness in society by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Nonsense.

      You can say whatever exteme racist, sexist, homophobic (etc) crap you want. It's just that the majority of people will probably think you're an idiot.

      If you're upset because society has changed, that's a different issue from freedom of speech.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    171. Re:Baking political correctness in society by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Racist, homophobic and misogynist "yaks" have generated controversy

      It may be distasteful and offensive to some...but it is still protected and free speech, as long as you aren't threatening anyone with direct harm.

      As a general rule, if in a democracy you're not prepared to put your name to it, you shouldn't say it.

      Especially in this context (late adolescent name calling at college), it's not like you're challenging an evil dictatorship and need to remain anonymous to avoid summary execution.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    172. Re: Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the time, he was. Society has ever moving goal posts and those goal posts are in place on almost every subject. Not too long ago it was normal to own another human being in the USA. That was disrupted and those against it would have been considered asshats. Those goal posts moved to where they are now, in general. If you support owning others you are the asshat in today's time.

      Society is judged based on a collective. If you are against what society supports you will be called out for it. if you feel strongly enough about your cause then you will pull up your pants and keep fighting to move those goal posts.

      Facebook and tumblr are not where that gets done. Those are echo chambers.

    173. Re:Baking political correctness in society by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If somebody makes a racist comment to somebody, they SHOULD be called out for it. If it was unintentional, then they SHOULD apologize and say so.

      If it was unintentional an apology is both meaningless and ridiculous.

      The "I apologise if I inadvertently caused offence" line always makes me laugh. Unless you've got Tourette's or something, you know what you're saying.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    174. Re:Baking political correctness in society by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      When people learn to respect the racist and the crackpot as much as they dislike their remarks then and only then will real progress have been made.

      I hope you are just playing with words, and by "respect" mean "respect their right to free speech."

      Because I have absolutely no respect for racists at all: they are deliberately stupid human beings, and it is the duty of anyone with a brain to tell them where they are wrong.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    175. Re:Baking political correctness in society by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      4 or 5 decades ago puts you into periods where racism and legally enforced discrimination was rampant. Take off the rose tinted glasses and you'll realize the past was rife with shittiness.

      The subtext in this thread is, of course, that most of the people whining are rich right wing white heterosexual males, who would have been comparatively better off 50 or 200 years ago when the balance of power was even more skewed than it currently is.

      Slavery might not have been great for the slaves, but it was perfectly fine for the slave owners, and society has indeed restricted their freedom to own slaves.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    176. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The subtext in this thread is, of course, that most of the people whining are rich right wing white heterosexual males, who would have been comparatively better off 50 or 200 years ago when the balance of power was even more skewed than it currently is.

      Not really.

      50 years ago puts us in the middle of the 60s, smack in the middle of the hippie movement and Civil Rights movement. It marked another defeat for racists and the "rich white". Being white back then is like being a Republican in 2008, watching Obama win the election, then win again, then push ObamaCare through, etc. That was made worse by having the Rs lose Congress in the 60s too, not just the White House.

      As to 200 years ago, well there wasn't a middle class back then. So there wouldn't be many *rich* whites. Only a minority owned slaves. Most whites were poor too, and the presence of slaves meant more competition and lower wages. And if 200 years ago really mean 1865, that would mean those whites were just coming out of the Civil War. Assuming they survived the war, their racist ways would be on the losing side.

    177. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if 200 years ago really mean 1865

      Bah. brain fart. 1865 is 150 years ago. But the point about there not being many rich whites back then stands

    178. Re:Baking political correctness in society by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Especially in this context (late adolescent name calling at college), it's not like you're challenging an evil dictatorship and need to remain anonymous to avoid summary execution.

      But, who is to decide which is and is not protected? It is ALL free speech and to guarantee anything that needs to be said can be said...you have to pretty much guarantee that speech you wish wasn't said to be able to be said too.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    179. Re:Baking political correctness in society by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      you're a SJW

      You lose.

      "SJW" is up there with "sheeple" for flagging up that a post is written by a drivelling poltroon.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    180. Re:Baking political correctness in society by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I can occasionally misspeak, or misjudge how I will be heard, and I really don't want to offend people inadvertently. In that case, if I offend anybody without meaning to, I apologize and try to make a mental note not to say things that way again.

      Similarly, if I spill a glass of water on somebody, I apologize, even though I didn't mean to. (Actually, iff I didn't mean to, because if I wanted to spill the water I wouldn't apologize for it.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    181. Re:Baking political correctness in society by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I consider myself a liberal, and agree with a whole lot of FDR's social programs. I'm also strongly for free speech, even for despicable assholes. (I'm not unalterably against eugenics, I despise people who try to name-drop science to support their social prejudices, and I don't see that we'll ever be free of class warfare - only that the winners and those who identify with them will discourage talking about it.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    182. Re:Baking political correctness in society by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Orwellian? I'm not sure there is a way to say "for a better society" in Newspeak, and "sacrifice free speech" would be something like "don't say wrongspeech".

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    183. Re:Baking political correctness in society by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      That "One Ring" threat was in a story that was obviously one-sided. Very likely, the kid involved had done other things that were actually bad, and was being disciplined for them.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    184. Re:Baking political correctness in society by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Do you have examples of actual hate speech laws in the US that were upheld by the court system? Specifically, laws that make hate speech itself illegal? There are laws against terroristic threats (and that phrase predates the DHS), and hate speech may be considered when it's time to determine the sentence for an actual crime, but I'm not aware of any actual convictions. (I'm not talking here about legislators that pass unconstitutional laws to grandstand for their constituents, or police or other officers who misunderstand the law.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    185. Re:Baking political correctness in society by lgw · · Score: 1

      No, I'm just saying use basic adult judgement in assessing threats. I know that's a difficult request of the "special snowflake" generation, but life will force that on that crowd anyhow. If you know of someone specific who might want to harm you, then it's totally reasonable to assume an anonymous threat is just a mask for the person you already know, but if not, if it's just an internet slap fight, then just ignore the trolls. (It's different if you're a celebrity, and actually have anonymous stalkers you've never met IRL, but normal people don't have this problem.)

      Life is not risk free, nor should it be. You need to have the judgement about risks, and whether a given risk is closer to the risk of driving, or the risk of being stuck by a meteor, to get through life.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    186. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same liberals that forced Brendan Eich out of Mozilla for making a free speech contribution to Prop 8?

      Whatever.

    187. Re:Baking political correctness in society by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, whatever. I'm not defending racism or discrimination but nice try to twist that to suit your sad attempt at justifying today's crybaby society. Keep whining if you like, I guess your pussy hurts.

    188. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. That is the tactic. Can't refute? Dismiss.

    189. Re:Baking political correctness in society by nobodie · · Score: 1

      But is this "free" speech or is this licenciousness? Is this not comparable to shouting "FIRE" in a theater since it incites people to act against their own best interests and the best interests of the society that supports them?

      There is nothing wrong, per se, with the app. Unfortunately it is being used illegally (and I mean that literally: shouting "FIRE" in a theater is illegal) and should change to help people use the app responsibly. Just saying that we are "free" to use it to perform an illegal action does not mean that the purveyorsof the app are "freedom fighters."

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    190. Re:Baking political correctness in society by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      But isn't law enforcement already monitoring everyone, all the time? How come they have unlimited resources for that?

    191. Re:Baking political correctness in society by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      There are better ways than censorship. Bomb detecting equipment. I always thought smoke detectors are the answer to someone yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Check the sensors instead of immediately panicking?

    192. Re:Baking political correctness in society by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      There are better ways than censorship. Bomb detecting equipment. I always thought smoke detectors are the answer to someone yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Check the sensors instead of immediately panicking?

      Technology doesn't cure everything.

      And in many cases, what people here claim is censorship is merely an application of common sense and manners.

      I don't see an ugly woman or man and feel compelled to rush up to them and tell them they are ugly.

      You just cannot go to extremes in defense of free speech. It's like any other pure ideology, because you end up at a point where you expect your right to free speech trumps someone else's right to free speech.

      Note: there was an exact case of this. An amateur radio operator some years ago was broadcasting opinions and other stuff on Amateur radio frequencies. He would intentionally interfere with others on what he considered "his" frequency. If you were near "his" frequency when he exercised his freedom of speech, He'd interrupt your communications and tell you to move. If you didn't, you'd be jammed.

      http://www.fcc.gov/document/us...

      http://ve7kfm.com/k1man.html

      http://www.eham.net/articles/9...

      http://forums.qrz.com/showthre...

      So for as hypothetical as that whole pile of stupidity sounds, where your freedom trumps everyone else's freedom, it has happened.

      The tl;dr summary is that This guy insisted upon his freedom to do several illegal things, at the same time purposely denying others their own right to do perfectly legal things.

      It's the end game, where the only person allowed to speak is the biggest, loudest asshole in the room who then won't allow you to speak.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  2. Anonymity is not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People being shitty is the problem. Don't doctor the symptoms, solve the problem.

    1. Re:Anonymity is not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Solve the problem of people being shitty? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! (breath) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

      You can't stop people being shitty. Some people are just assholes. Always have been. Always will be. There's no solving that. Maybe we can make it untenable to be an asshole publicly though. Yik Yak should add a slashdot-like moderation feature and people could set a "don't show me comments below a +5" filter.

    2. Re:Anonymity is not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if trying to solve the problem of people being shitty creates the shittiest people?

      Never mind, that was just a shitty idea...

    3. Re:Anonymity is not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out this anonymous coward.

    4. Re:Anonymity is not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this one.

    5. Re:Anonymity is not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People being shitty is the problem. Don't doctor the symptoms, solve the problem.

      That's a tough nut to crack, given that being shitty is a positive selection trait in business, politics, and relationships.

    6. Re:Anonymity is not the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're obviously not browsing with a +5 filter, even though Slashdot offers it to you. Why not?

  3. I already know I'm old but by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Funny

    I know I'm already old in the eyes of hip young college students, but am I the only one who's never heard of Yik Yak? It sounds like what happens after you eat cheap chinese food on campus.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:I already know I'm old but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who cares? For once, it was properly described in TFS, so no problem understanding what this is all about!

    2. Re:I already know I'm old but by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Don't feel bad.
      New apps come out all the time, and have the staying power of a fart in a hurricane.
      Something else will come along to put yik yak out to pasture.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    3. Re:I already know I'm old but by rHBa · · Score: 1

      Me neither, the repeated references to yaking had me really confused. Then again maybe I understood the meaning perfectly...

    4. Re:I already know I'm old but by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You're confusing it with Yiq Yuq.

  4. Public Service Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PSA: "Picking up chicks" and prostitution are not the same thing.

    1. Re: Public Service Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure about that

    2. Re:Public Service Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, they're not. A prostitute will go away.

    3. Re:Public Service Announcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's what you pay them for

  5. Well, Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

  6. Can you Yak a fire in the Campus theater? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Not all speech is protected.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Can you Yak a fire in the Campus theater? by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      And am *I* the one who gets to decide what is and isn't? Or you?

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    2. Re:Can you Yak a fire in the Campus theater? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a nation raised on 'Duck and Cover' it surprises me that orderly exit from a theatre seems an impossibility in the the event of someone merely shouting 'Fire'. Before rampaging to the exits, all guns blazing and biting at any uncover flesh of fellow patrons I'd have expected at least that someone would have waited for the smell of smoke.

      But then being english the queue would be orderly, people would wait their turn and in the event an American pushed past in a mad rush for the exit we would all move out of the way and appologise for slowing them down.

    3. Re:Can you Yak a fire in the Campus theater? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Not all speech is protected.

      Actually it is; it's the consequences of the speech that get you in trouble.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    4. Re:Can you Yak a fire in the Campus theater? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2

      Not all speech is protected.

      Yes. It is. It amazes me that people still cite Holmes's "fire in a crowded theater" bullshit from Schenck v. United States, where the SCOTUS trampled over Amendment I to criminalize an anti-draft protest.

      If you shout "fire" in a theater when there is in fact a fire, you could be a hero. If you're on stage as part of the performance and fire is part of the plot of the play, you can shout "fire!". If shouting "fire" in a theater causes people to get trampled, the fault is on the architects or operators of the theater for not providing adequate exit routes, not the speaker. The only rightful liability someone falsely crying "fire" falsely has is civil, not criminal.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    5. Re:Can you Yak a fire in the Campus theater? by asylumx · · Score: 1

      And am *I* the one who gets to decide what is and isn't? Or you?

      Yes. That's how democracy works (or is supposed to). No individuals decide, instead we all do as a society. Yes, that means the decisions won't all go your way.

    6. Re:Can you Yak a fire in the Campus theater? by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      The first vote I propose is a law saying that any disparagement of Jesus is illegal speech.

      77% of Americans are Christian. So let's put it to a vote and see democracy in action.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    7. Re:Can you Yak a fire in the Campus theater? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there *can* be criminal penalties as a result of shouting 'fire'. However they won't be attached to what you shouted. They'll be attached to the *consequences* of what you shouted. (Inciting panic, and/or negligent homicide, for example, if you trigger a panic, and people are trampled to death.)

    8. Re:Can you Yak a fire in the Campus theater? by Falos · · Score: 1

      A1 doesn't empower you to commit illegal acts via speech/opinion. Like endangering human lives.

    9. Re:Can you Yak a fire in the Campus theater? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, enough of those Christians realize that both freedom of speech and the separation of church and state are important things. That doesn't hold in all places of course there are US states that still have blasphemy laws.

    10. Re:Can you Yak a fire in the Campus theater? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure Jesus would reject the idea of that law. Matthew 12:32.

    11. Re:Can you Yak a fire in the Campus theater? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Exactly. And the exact same words can be both protected and non-protected.

      If you incite a crowd to rape a woman on campus, or to beat someone to death, the first amendment will not protect you. If you slander someone, the first amendment will not protect you. If you lie about a product in your marketing literature, the first amendment will not protect you.

      For someone who is trying to quote case law, you certainly have a very inaccurate view of the limits of free speech.

      And, whether you like it or not, SCOTUS is the arbiter of the intent of the constitution. Until they change their minds, their interpretations stand. You don't get to put your personal spin on the constitution or the amendments and expect the rest of us to take your personal viewpoint as God given truth.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  7. Actual violence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, short of the communicated 'threat of mass violence', has any actual vioence taken place? Remains to be seen...Like shouting fire in a theater, this is just another useful tool for idiots to speak loudly through, without thinking of the consequences. Quick! Better outlaw it before the feelings are hurt by someone with importance! Or, that it makes the student body, or overall College, look more idoitic than it already is!

  8. A simple solution to the controversy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Grow some thicker skin. College campuses these days are worse than your average tumblr feed with all the self styled victims and manufactured offense. If you can't deal with some random anonymous web postings on a chat app noone forces you to use, then you're not cut out for the real world.

    1. Re:A simple solution to the controversy by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      It's sad that in this era when we need it most, the movie "PCU" isn't available for streaming. It should be projected into every dorm room.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  9. Don't see a problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Unless people are being forced against their will to use the app I don't see a problem.
    Use your god give/naturally evolved/some other explanation free will and don't install the app.

  10. Misogyny Enablement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    . At Kenyon College, a "yakker" proposed a gang rape at the school's women's center.

    "It's a problem with the Internet culture in general, but when you add this hyper-local dimension to it, it takes on a more disturbing dimension," says Elias Aboujaoude." "You don't know where the aggression is coming from, but you know it's very close to you."

    This is what online anonymity promotes: Hatred of women and rape culture. The developers of this app know, and probably always knew, that their softwarewould be used to harass women and enable misogynistic communication. This is the fear and hatred that anonymity breeds. I have to post on Slashdot as AC because of the reactionary culture AC promotes in these comments. This is the consequence of site owners not responsibly curating their users and seeing this bleed so quickly into real life is terrifying. Are college campuses and public strrets going to be turned into a trip through the dark net for women and minorities?

    She said it would be like banning all bulletin boards in a school just because someone posted a racist comment on one of the boards.

    Yiki Yak is nothing like a bulletin board. If offenseive words or speech is posted on a bulletin board in a public space, then students who are offended have the ability to simply remove the bile. Unless Yik Yak give this power back to the powerless, they've just created a new hate-mail. You might as well develop an app that broadcasts nazi hate speech onto campus walls.

    Yik Yak basically enables domestic college terrorism. Young women and daughters pay enough and work hard enough in college already and society has a responsibility to defend them from harassment and troglodyte troll losers. They, along with the rest of the internet, need to grow up an accept responsibility. It's time to let anonymity go.

    1. Re:Misogyny Enablement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're basically saying is:

      Anonymity for me, but not for thee...

    2. Re:Misogyny Enablement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      It is a shame that so many people are going to miss this.
      Mods remember that caricatures are funny.

    3. Re:Misogyny Enablement by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Oh the irony. If I had mod points if go with funny mr anonymous coward.

    4. Re:Misogyny Enablement by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      Awesome troll, you managed to get a slippery slope, reductio ad hitleram, a reference to terrorism, and an appeal to emotion all in three short paragraphs..

      Bingo!

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    5. Re:Misogyny Enablement by davydagger · · Score: 1

      This is what online anonymity promotes: Hatred of women and rape culture.

      Yes, we all know it hardly existed before hand. If you really cared about such, you'd have better luck invetisgating the athletics department. If you questioned the actual rapists and actual people promoting and normalizing rape if they post online, if they learned to rape people online, the answer would most likely be no. You also give no real evidence to support your claim. Rape culture is propigated by people who are very much not anonymous, not online, but simply above the rules. People who are too big to jail, popular and "member of the community", which we are unwilling to prosecute. These are the people who commit most of the actual rapes. Example is Bill Cosby, most of the same "leftist" hollywood types where quick to question the accusations against Mr Cosby, and many people quick to dismiss them because he played the loving Mr Huxable on TV 20 years ago. People like him commit most of the rapes. The biggest reason why we can't deal with rape culture is because some of its biggest supporters are women calling themselves feminists.

      Speaking of online anonyimitty, I am logged in and you are not. The irony is both hillarious and glaring.

  11. Anonymous speech *is* the problem by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not in general mind you, but most people who have their name/reputation tied to what they say to others are rarely* inflammatory, belligerent, or insulting because it has social consequences for the speaker. But anonymous speech, where it has no consequences for you and only consequences for a target, is specifically the case where people become assholes.

    Now, they may have been assholes all their lives, but anonymous services empower them. Are you really in favor of empowering assholes?

    *since many on /. seem so to be pissed all the time, I mean "rarely" in the sense of the number of mean spirited comments compared to all comments made in the world, not the number of mean spirited comments *you* come up with among your friends or when you're pissed at someone/something.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Anonymous speech *is* the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Agreed. If people have something worthwhile to say, they should be prepared to sign their name to it. If you do end up facing consequences, maybe you should have thought first before saying something that hurt other people.

    2. Re:Anonymous speech *is* the problem by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Informative

      Anonymity doesn't just empower assholes. It also empowers whistleblowers, people who are afraid to be honest about the powerful because they're weak, people whose ideas may be controversial but still need to be heard, etc.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    3. Re:Anonymous speech *is* the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not in general mind you, but most people who have their name/reputation tied to what they say to others are rarely* inflammatory, belligerent, or insulting because it has social consequences for the speaker.

      you've obviously never heard a radio talk show host.

    4. Re:Anonymous speech *is* the problem by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      Wrong.

      If people have something worthwhile to say, what does it matter to the recipients if the author is anonymous or not?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    5. Re:Anonymous speech *is* the problem by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes because history had proven that there was never any blowback from saying women should have the right to vote or that blacks and other minorities deserve the same rights and abilities in society that whites and everyone else enjoys.

      Yep, you should think twice before publically participating in political speech else that donation to the group wanting to define marriage between a man and a woman will stop you from having a job at some places.

      You are 100% corect think hard before you speak.

    6. Re:Anonymous speech *is* the problem by orlanz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Anonymity is not the problem. And it doesn't empower assholes. For such people, it allows them to vent their issues and opinions. The alternative is to let them fester and feed on itself till either the usual destruction of the individual or the rare out lash against society through murder or bombing or joining slightly like minded individuals. Individuals who grow in strength with their numbers and common causes and lash out against [from their view point] an oppressive society.

      Anonymity actually empowers society to see the underlying issues within when they are small and addressable (Slashdot Beta anyone). The alternative is to go about our lives as if everything is perfect cause everything has conformed to be just like everyone else. Eventually the hidden issues get too large to be ignored or addressed and we end up paying for it. At the same time we learn very little cause we erased all the signs and are unable to prevent them in the future.

      We shouldn't throw away anonymity just cause the messages we see ruin our picture of a perfect society or hurt our feelings. We should address the problems rather than shoot the messenger.

    7. Re:Anonymous speech *is* the problem by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be something as dire as whistle blowers.

      People who are not trolls may want to be anonymous for reasons, by way of example but not by way of limitation:

      1.) There are relatives in the hood
      2.) Employees/employers may be in the hood
      3.) People want to put information out there and aren't really interested in a dialog
      4.) Other.

      Look:

      Religious freedom may help us understand written trolling:

      Westboro Baptist church is about as offensive as a pseudo-Christian organization can get and they are not anonymous.

      Still, they are trolls.

      Still, they are protected by free speech.

      [Obligatory plea for God to damn Westboro Church and I'm glad that asshole Fred Phelps is dead.]

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    8. Re:Anonymous speech *is* the problem by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      In general, yes - as I stated in the first five words of my post.

      To the topic of discussion, though, Yik Yak is not a platform for whistleblowers. And there are far more borderline assholes who are unleashed on Yik Yak than there are whistleblowers who would change the world or amend great wrongs with a platform like Yik Yak.

      Not that Yik Yak is bad, or should necessarily be eliminated - but the right to unlimited assholeness is not guaranteed when it targets someone. Your freedom to yell "gang bang" does not exist any more than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    9. Re:Anonymous speech *is* the problem by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      " it allows them to vent their issues and opinions. "

      You say "allow" I say "empower." Same concept.

      I'm under no illusion that we can fix society, because it's full of fucked up people who are essentially raised to be mean, bigoted assholes by their parents (who are generally mean, bigoted assholes).

      Allowing the borderline assholes to explore these tendencies and gain confidence in their ability to emotionally torture others will not fix them. Allowing full-on assholes to do the same is no better.

      "Anonymity actually empowers society to see the underlying issues within when they are small and addressable"
      I would disagree. Society is not a user interface on a computer database; not even close. And simply showing that there are assholes among us is no closer to a solution. We know they're there. All this does is reinforce their belief that being an asshole is perfectly acceptable, because there are no consequences for doing so.

      If you went to class every day and called your professor an ugly cunt that should be beaten every day, how would that affect your relationship with that professor? If you said your professor was a dick and should have someone sodomize him with a baseball bat during the Q&A portion of a lecture, would that help or hurt your grade in the class? What if you could do it anonymously? Which of those two cases would produce a better societal outcome for you, personally? Which one would produce a better outcome for the class as a whole?

      The anonymous platform does not benefit society in these cases, only the speaker. Most of Yik Yak is innocuous. The subset we're talking about is, imho, abusive.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    10. Re:Anonymous speech *is* the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a few examples of people whose name/reputation is tied to what they say and are *frequently* inflammatory, belligerent, or insulting:
      Howard Stern
      Rush Limbaugh
      Piers Morgan

    11. Re:Anonymous speech *is* the problem by davydagger · · Score: 1

      If people have to be kept in check top down from authority figures to prevent them from raping and murdering people, its a sign society has some pretty deep seeded problems.

      The only thing yik-yak is doing is bringing deep seeded social problems to light.

      Think about it, before hand, the type of people who posted this stuff would be raping and hurting people anyway, which can be attested by the amount of rapes and assaults that happen on college campuses to start with. The obscene behavior by college kids predates these anonymous threats.

      But, in typical American fashion, you'd rather not deal with the underlying problem.

    12. Re:Anonymous speech *is* the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. If people have something worthwhile to say, they should be prepared to sign their name to it.

      Do you live in the US? Had everyone thought this way in the 1700s, your country wouldn't even exist.

    13. Re:Anonymous speech *is* the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, no. Just yesterday I had an ex-client, supposedly "Christian" businessman threaten me with death because his gross incompetence caused our project to fail. He attempted to dehumanize me and said that I deserve to die, then shortly after wished he could do it himself, expressing grotesque detail.

      This guy is a pinnacle of his community, a deacon in his church, and also a con artist who intentionally sabotages software projects so he can attempt to sue. Luckily my lawyer has already found problems in the contract that will lead to nullification, but this guy clearly doesn't give a shit about his reputation. He doesn't even address the countless complaints about his company on the internet. He is wanted for fraud in the state of MA.

      People still give him money. Nobody even cares anymore.

    14. Re:Anonymous speech *is* the problem by dmbasso · · Score: 1

      Westboro Baptist church is about as offensive as a literal-interpretation-Christian organization can get and they are not anonymous.

      FTFY. But I bet they still eat shellfish.

      [Obligatory plea for God to damn Westboro Church and I'm glad that asshole Fred Phelps is dead.]

      That's what Jesus would say. You are indeed a good Christian (I mean, if by "God" you meant Yahweh).

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    15. Re:Anonymous speech *is* the problem by davydagger · · Score: 1

      Of course not. All I am asking as you do not throw "due proccess" out the window because you are threatened this time. Due proccess exists for a reason. The reason is that not everyone accused is guilty.

    16. Re:Anonymous speech *is* the problem by davydagger · · Score: 1

      If you went to class every day and called your professor an ugly cunt that should be beaten every day, how would that affect your relationship with that professor? If you said your professor was a dick and should have someone sodomize him with a baseball bat during the Q&A portion of a lecture, would that help or hurt your grade in the class? What if you could do it anonymously? Which of those two cases would produce a better societal outcome for you, personally? Which one would produce a better outcome for the class as a whole?

      the problem is most of society deals with this every day. those with money, status, and power are systematicly allowed to abuse those without, to their face, with no consequnces.

      The only thing here is we are aghast that people without power, money, or status are now taking the same liberties.

      Perhaps we need more "Golden Rule" unviersalism in our ethos and this probably would not happen, as most people learn by example.

    17. Re:Anonymous speech *is* the problem by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing he lives in the UK as something that ironic can only be intentional.

    18. Re:Anonymous speech *is* the problem by orlanz · · Score: 1

      You ever seen a nobody in a clown suit get booed off the stage? Ever seen a bad neighborhood clean up itself and teach their kids not to tag their properties? Both acts of anonymity fixed by a society that addressed the issue.

      In your professor's case, he too can stand up and belittle the anonymous person in front of the class by reading the submission out loud. Address it as a community, not as individuals. And if the class agrees, you can bet that anonymous person feels like total crap for being the ass hole and will change his ways ... or leave cause he knows he is not welcome in the environment. This is far more constructive than directly belittling or giving bad grades to the one or two idiots who attach their identify to the opinion (actually this is far more dangerous). Cause the one guy who hides the opinion from fear of repercussions and lets it fester, will snap one day and really do take it out on the professor. At that point, grades left the thought process an eon ago.

      Anonymity doesn't mean society just takes it and no one stands up against it. We shouldn't cower away from hurt feelings. We should face them head on. Sure, there are lots of cases where the issue isn't worth the time and best be forgotten, but we shouldn't scrap the platform just cause of that.

    19. Re:Anonymous speech *is* the problem by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Fuck you for calling me a Christian. I see that insult and raise you with, "Yeah? Your mother wears combat boots and stuff."

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    20. Re:Anonymous speech *is* the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent point. It has come to my attention that people are typing "cause" instead of "because". Following your lead we should all take the opportunity to nip this pernicious behavior in the bud before it gets out of hand.

  12. I think it's awesome. by Dins · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I just downloaded the app. It lets you listen in on various different college campuses in case your area is boring (it is). I did a brief, extremely unscientific survey of a few colleges, and I didn't see anything specifically racist, homophobic or whatever. What I saw was college kids being college kids.

    Sure you're going to see a little bit of everything because there's a little bit of everything in society. I didn't see anything too bad, but I'm sure it's there. Political correctness and people trying to censor stuff like this are the problem. This is no different than a local (physical) bulletin board.

    1. Re:I think it's awesome. by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      Yet you are drawing conclusions. Because you personally didn't see anything "too bad". When the article gives examples of threats of gang rape! Unless you did see that and thought "hey, it's no big deal".

    2. Re:I think it's awesome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope someone doesn't discover rape threats on bathroom walls. They are going to ban bathrooms immediately.

    3. Re:I think it's awesome. by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      He's just waiting for the IPO.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    4. Re:I think it's awesome. by asylumx · · Score: 1

      This is no different than a local (physical) bulletin board.

      There IS a difference. When you post on a local bulletin board you walk up to it in person and stick the paper on the board. There is risk to your anonymity and there is also more effort required. A barrier to entry, but one not so high that good-intentioned folks will be stopped by it -- just enough to keep the lazy trolls off the bridge.

    5. Re:I think it's awesome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been trying to use Yik Yak for the last 6 months. It is used by high school / college crowd. Posts are mostly high school problems, and inane stuff about the other gender.

  13. Hateful speech must be protected first by rmdingler · · Score: 2
    There will always be people willing to exploit the idiots use of free speech to call for its eradication for the rest of us.

    Now, where is the daylight savings time article?

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  14. it's not normal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    censoring isn't a solution, when people post these provocations there's something wrong at the core of their being. Having this happen is a sign that society is sick and trying to ignore it by censorship is just going to make it harder to nurse back to health.

  15. So, don't download it by Aqualung812 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I downloaded Yik Yak and used it for about a week. I saw what was going on there.

    If you are disturbed by what you see on there, delete the app. Let those idiots spew toxic shit at each other, and you can go on unaware of their ramblings.

    Eventually, Yik Yak will die off, and the "problem" is solved.

    Or, do you somehow think we can pass some law that will change human nature?

    --
    Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    1. Re:So, don't download it by jythie · · Score: 1

      Time does seem like the solution to this, if Yik Yak gets that toxic than most people will leave and without an audience the jerks will also fade away. Given that rather rapid turnover on college campuses this process could happen pretty rapidly.

    2. Re:So, don't download it by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      This.

      It's the goddam Internet.

      Get over it.

      I started using the Internet when Moby Dick was a minnow and trolls have become, for me, simply "noise," that I step around just like I used to step around bullshit in an otherwise pleasant meadow.

      Don't like bullshit?

      Stay on the sidewalk.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    3. Re:So, don't download it by rhazz · · Score: 1

      This ignores the fact that without the trolling and threats, Yik Yak might be a service that people want to use and benefit from. Your comment could just as easily be applied to the internet in general. I don't think society has a very bright future if every time the trolls move in, we simply let the forum or medium "die off". This is already happening with most sites that allow comments on news articles - the trolls have prevented any meaningful discussion and the commenting is shut down. It is not a good thing.

      No, I don't think there's a law that will adequately address the issue without harming other freedoms, but letting potentially useful services die off because of random assholes seems too far in the other direction.

    4. Re:So, don't download it by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There are several internet services that enable mass communication, and there can be competition with them. The ones that people pay attention to will generally survive, and the others will die off.

      If there's an unfilled need for something like Yik Yak with some sort of means of stopping such threats (I don't know if that's possible because I don't know what the attraction is), then maybe Yik Yak will offer that service or somebody else will. As long as we have net neutrality, we've got an open market, and those are very handy sometimes.

      This isn't a free speech matter, in that internet services can have terms of service and enforce them, and if you don't like it you're welcome to try to make your own forum or set up your own website.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  16. Why concealed carry is needed on campus. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let the Yakkers Yak. It is all talk and no action. When it becomes action, every citizen should step up and halt the bad actors.
    If they want to sit in their dorm room and yell at the computer, does it really hurt anyone?

    1. Re:Why concealed carry is needed on campus. by Fishchip · · Score: 1

      Wen it becomes action the instant response will be to shut down the app allowing the preliminary communication to occur. You know that.

  17. False premise... by brxndxn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Colleges are largely powerless to deal with the havoc Yik Yak is wreaking." This assumes that Yik Yak is wreaking havoc. So far, the article itself does not even give any real example to 'havoc' being wreaked by Yik Yak. This whole article can be summed up by "A new disruptive way of anonymous communication is catching on amongst college students. Naturally, a bunch of Orwellian-type people are worried about their lack of control over it." Further, if any actual violence happens because it was first announced on Yik Yak, it would be no different than if actual violence happened because it was announced via email, Facebook, or someone yelling and screaming it at a crowd.

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
    1. Re:False premise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      So far, the article itself does not even give any real example to 'havoc' being wreaked by Yik Yak.

      WOMEN ARE AFRAID!!!

    2. Re:False premise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOMEN ARE AFRAID!!!

      BLACKS ARE OFFENDED!!!1

      (lower case words to beat the filter. more lower case words to beat the filter. low low low yer boat, gently down the stream)

    3. Re:False premise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      University's try to investigate any threats made to determine if they are credible; they have already established procedure for e-mail, Facebook, or some on yelling and screaming it at a crowd. When they started to see a huge usage of Yik Yak, it was naturally to ask what options exist for this new medium.

      I see a lot of people concerned over free speech; 99%+ of what happens on Yik Yak the university doesn't care about. At the same time universities need to take reasonable measure to protect students; that means trying to prevent mass shootings but it also means trying to identify students that need help. Several mental issues typically present themselves during the college years and since its the first time for many of the students to really be on their own, they can get overwhelmed and may not have the necessary coping skills. Where I went to school, the police try to identify threats and their response is, we need to talk to this individual. They'd much prefer to get involved in a student's life and help him/her to find help or counseling then to put that person in jail.

      I've read criticisms of why should school's have their own police departments; I'd always argue for safety as my school's police did a much better job of keeping campus safe then the city did off-campus. There's also a remarkable difference in the pro-activeness and in attitude. To this day, if I see a city officer, I'd rather go the other way as it could be a great interaction or not; even as a student, seeing the school police was a positive thing as they'd frequently "hang out" with students, tell some of the best stories, and were just fun to be around. Even for the people who had done something to have a involuntary interaction with them, they didn't dread the police coming around, they always said they treated them fairly, were friendly, and were trying to look out for everyone's best interest.

    4. Re:False premise... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      This.

      Yik Yak is going to hell anyway when it zeros in on a business model.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    5. Re:False premise... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Sorry for that, lady.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    6. Re:False premise... by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      It gives a clear example, that is being ignored thus far. Threats of rape at a women's center. If you've been raped, are going to a woman's center for support, and see messages calling for a gang rape + know it is coming from within a 1.5 mile radius, that is pretty damn scary. The problem with threats is you have little idea which ones are misguided expulsions of internet hate, and which are early warning signs from someone who might actually carry through and commit a related act of violence.

      Not saying censorship is the answer, but we sure as hell should not pretend this isn't an issue.

    7. Re:False premise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't threats of rape illegal? If so then the solution is simply to report it to the police which then could contact Yik Yak and get the user info for the user who posted that line.

    8. Re:False premise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with threats is you have little idea which ones are misguided expulsions of internet hate, and which are early warning signs from someone who might actually carry through and commit a related act of violence.

      Or, knowing what the student body at Kenyon is like, put there by some SJW as a form of sabotage/protest.

    9. Re:False premise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that threat was not credible at all. If you can't sniff that one out as a blatant troll, maybe you should just trust the judgement of an adult who's outside the autistic spectrum.

  18. Re:Slave Tongues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I see what you did there... by prefacing something with "to a certain degree" and not specifying that the degree was zero you made an argument which is technically correct but completely fallacious.

    In your "you must own a car" example, the difference between slavery and freedom is the part you left out about "You must live there, and you must leave the property" neither of which is a requirement.

    See what you are doing is confusing society and culture with the government. It's a common mistake, it also makes it easier to place blame on some one other than yourself and your peers (though the government is also made up of people, like yourself and your peers).

    We have a culture that encourages car ownership, but there is nothing forcing you to own one... even if you choose to live on a property that is only accessible by car, you could still have everything delivered, and work remotely or not work at all and have nothing.

    Does some one choosing to live on their own a private island lack freedom because they are forced to own a boat or plane to get to the island... it also isn't accessible by bicycle... That private island owner is a slave to the boating and aviation industries!

    Or hypothetically lets say I lived in olden times.... the baker has the only oven in town and thus is the only place to get bread, am I a slave to the baker because I need to pay him to get bread? Or is he a slave to the community because they pay him for bread and that allows him to pay for other services he needs access too? Interdependence on other people (what economics is really all about) isn't a form of slavery it's a form of civilization, if you can't tell the difference then I suggest either selling yourself into actual servitude, or trying to live free of interdependence on other people. I think you'll find both much more difficult than simply owning a car.

  19. This is beyond asinine. by fey000 · · Score: 1

    What in the nine hells is this whining? It's a god damn app on a cell phone!
    You want to "prevent the havoc"? Turn the damn app off! The world doesn't owe your delicate sensibilities a damn thing, and not every app must censor that which you may not want to hear.

    Is this some kind of joke? Is it an Onion piece? Is it one of those far-far-far-left progressive campaigns again, where everything must be acceptable to everyone, or be literally Hitler and threatened off campus? I cannot make any sense of the accusations here, as it seems to be a completely voluntary situation.

  20. Think of it as? by mr.mctibbs · · Score: 1

    It *is* a virtual community bulletin board. Nothing more. I've yet to see any criticisms of this concept that don't apply equally to message boards in meatspace.

    1. Re:Think of it as? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Since I predate the Internet by a fair number of years, I've seen plenty of physical bulletin boards. Oddly, I don't remember seeing any threats of violence, while they seem to be fairly prevalent online. Therefore, it appears that there is a difference between the two, since the results are different.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  21. Some people shouldn't be allowed on the internet by Karmashock · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ... no not the people trolling, the idiots can't handle trolls. People need to grow up and stop acting like thin skinned children.

    Or get the fuck off the internet.

    This service requires you actively pay attention to it. If you say something about me on this service, I won't know because I'm not on it. And if I were, I wouldn't give a shit.

    I feel like there are three main groups here.

    A group of older people that don't really understand the internet.

    A group of pity/victim/issues trolls that really just thrive on any situation where they can pretend they're in need of protection.

    And basically a lot of people laughing at the first two groups.

    Now am I being callus and dismissive of their feelings? Yep. Everyone learns at some point that you can't be a whiny cry baby about everything or you're known as the whiny cry baby. So you toughen up and learn to be more of an adult. Its part of growing up.

    Sadly, some people just learn how to more effectively be whiny cry babies. And listening to them and giving them credibility they don't merit merely enables their imature behavior.

    Am I saying making death threats online is acceptable behavior? Nope... it is however inevitable. I've been getting death threats for ages.

    Want to guess how many of them I took seriously? If you guessed zero then you're on target. I typically dare the little idiots to try it.

    Threats on the internet are part of the background radiation of this place. I don't take them seriously because they don't translate into ACTUAL physical harm. The statistics on how many threats on the internet actually lead to any kind of real violence are so inconsequential as to be irrelevant.

    Let me be clear, I fear my bathtub is more likely to kill me then anyone on the internet even if I was dumb enough to let them have my address.

    Anywho, some pathetic dupe is going to respond that I'm not being appropriately sensitive to asshats complaining about things that won't happen. Allow me to assert even before you say a word that I disagree. I think it is our credence of their unjustified fears and coddling of their immature emotional states that creates this situation.

    When someone starts with this sort of nonsense... every part of me cries out to slap them in the face. Not to hurt them. Just to stop them from acting like hysterical children. No, I do not favor hitting children. No I do not favor hitting women. I do however favor slapping people that are of adult age acting like children when they know better.

    Grow the fuck up.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  22. ? whaaaa by koan · · Score: 2

    Colleges are largely powerless to deal with the havoc Yik Yak is wreaking.

    Huh? A piece of software is wreaking havoc? Wouldn't it be the sociopathic children that attend the school that are creating the havoc?

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:? whaaaa by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Software doesn't troll People, People troll People.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  23. Junk App by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 3, Informative

    I recently downloaded the app and gave it a spin that lasted about two weeks. It's a new spin on a very old concept but it doesn't work well at all.

    That 1.5 mile radius is incredibly limiting - if you start a conversation at home you can't participate in it once you get to work. The anonymous comments are filled with so much bitching and whining of spoiled brats it really makes me resent the student body at my local university. There's a huge amount of group-think that's baked into the app itself - say something unpopular and earn just a few downvotes and Yik Yak will delete your comment forever. That's when it's not losing your comments to begin with: that crappy service lost nearly 20% of my comments, but continued to alert me for updates to conversations that have completely disappeared.

    TL;DR - Yik Yak is a gimmick and a poorly made one at that.

    --
    I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    1. Re:Junk App by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a huge amount of group-think that's baked into the app itself

      Downvote/upvote systems considered harmful

  24. Good Or Bad Speech Comes from the heart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Evil seeks to silence the Good using Censorship in the name of Tolerance to force its view.
    Good aims to change the hearts of people though love.

    You can't effectively sensor Evil away. But if you try, you will mostly silence the good people who honor the law.

  25. It sounds like a mobile version of 4chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  26. Randomness by Andy+Smith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The trouble with Yik Yak is that you're hostage to other people's whims, and this app seems to attract people that prefer negativity. I tried a little experiment -- I posted one "funny" comment, one positive comment, and one negative comment. Both the funny and positive comments were quickly down-voted to -5 and removed, whereas the negative comment was up-voted and quickly became the most popular yak in my area. Most of the other top-rated yaks are people moaning about the town, the people, the night life, etc. Usually by the time you see a nice / positive yak it's already at -3 or -4 and when you refresh the list it's gone. I deleted the app.

    1. Re:Randomness by Graydyn+Young · · Score: 1
      That sounds like something fun to try and quantify. How big of a bunch of whiners are Yik Yak users?

      I'm going to go see if Yik Yak has an API that I can use. Then I'll run sentiment analysis on every post and chart it against its vote score. Then I can finally prove once and for all that everybody is an asshole (at least on one arbitrary social media site).

    2. Re:Randomness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lets assume your experiment is representative of all conversations on yik yak which is to say most of the time "negative" comments get up-voated and "positive" down-voted. Why is this a bad thing. perhaps the anonymous nature of the app lends itself to giving people a "negative" outlet. Everyone wants to be cherry and positive all the time and doesn't want their status a precious little snowflake shaken. sometimes its good to be negative. you can't really do it on facebook or twitter etc. yik yak lets people say how they really feel whats wrong with that.

    3. Re:Randomness by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the average slashdot discussion, actually. :) ...cough...systemd..., and your post is a criticism which got modded up. Deserved or not, I think people like to pile onto criticism.

    4. Re:Randomness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was the negative comment factually correct?

  27. What is the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Esha Bhandari, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, argues that "banning Yik Yak on campuses might be unconstitutional," especially at public universities or private colleges in California where the so-called Leonard Law protects free speech.

    There are obvious public safety concerns. It has already been established through the courts that people do not have the right of free speech to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. If Yik Yak is being used to promote illegal activity then ban it. Last time I checked gang rape is against the law.

    1. Re:What is the problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked citing 'safety concerns' was a great excuse for banning stuff you don't like.

      PS: I just banned the internet , text messages , phone calls and going out after dark due to 'safety concerns'

    2. Re:What is the problem? by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      There are obvious public safety concerns. It has already been established through the courts that people do not have the right of free speech to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. If Yik Yak is being used to promote illegal activity then ban it. Last time I checked gang rape is against the law.

      Yes but :

      The app's privacy policy prevents schools from identifying users without a subpoena, court order or search warrant, or an emergency request from a law-enforcement official with a compelling claim of imminent harm.

      Tu put is simply, it's just the school administrations that are unhappy because they can't do as they please. If it is against the law, it is a job for the police, who have the right to uncover users identity.

  28. Re: Slave Tongues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I see what you did there... by prefacing something with "to a certain degree" and not specifying that the degree was zero you made an argument which is technically correct but completely fallacious.
    In your "you must own a car" example, the difference between slavery and freedom is the part you left out about "You must live there, and you must leave the property" neither of which is a requirement."

    He has very valid points. The only confused one is you. Just because we are all slaves does not lessen the impact because you single-handedly point out the individual, jagoff.

  29. I love these! by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They just prove that human being in general when they can hide who they are, turn into horrible monsters.

    History repeats, yet nobody learns.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:I love these! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't *have* to turn into horrible monsters, and most of them don't. However, it only takes a few to poison the discussion if there's no way to downvote/moderate the minority that are idiots.

    2. Re:I love these! by asylumx · · Score: 1

      But there is a way to downvote. See the comment above the GP, what is happening is that all the negative, trolling comments are getting upvoted when you'd think they'd be downvoted.

    3. Re:I love these! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It proves no such thing. Some people, given anonymity, will turn into horrible monsters. Some will be polite and respectful.

      On an internet forum, though, just a few assholes can make things unpleasant for everyone. There are also real-life situations where people's worst feelings get reinforced and their best get suppressed, and those can get very bad. Most of the time, most people are decent.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  30. Business Model by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    1. Create app that is old wine in a new model

    2. Get college kids to use it and possibly say some things others may find offensive or stupid; i.e. get them to act like college kids

    3. Get NYT to write article

    4. Profit

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  31. God damnit people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Censor does not start with an S.

  32. Re:Some people shouldn't be allowed on the interne by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I don't agree with the notion that censorship or banning of apps will solve anything, I also don't agree with your assertion that people need to "grow up" if they're upset by what they see on the internet. We should encourage people to play nice.

    I'm as thick skinned as the next guy, but I'd love it if trolls were non-existent if only because the white noise of this place would be significantly reduced.

  33. Reality of YikYak by danaris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's the harsh reality:

    On the campus I work for, there have been death threats posted on YikYak. Are they credible? There's no way to know. Because we don't know who's sending them. So they have to be treated as credible—and the university simply doesn't have the resources to provide even one person with 24/7 protection, let alone the half-dozen or so that the death threats were issued against.

    So the administration's response was basically, "We cannot protect you if someone is determined to get at you. If you believe the threats are credible, then our best recommendation is for you to leave the campus." And some of them did. I believe they came back after winter break, but still, they missed final exams, and I have no idea how much hassle that's going to cause them in the long run.

    Which all means that if you are a person who has a grudge against someone else on campus, and few scruples, you can get them more or less kicked off of campus by issuing an anonymous death threat against them on YikYak.

    Is that the kind of "harsh reality" you think is appropriate? Where people who are just trying to get a decent education (and paying a pretty penny for it) can be forced to make the choice between abandoning it, and risking their lives by staying on campus, just because some asshole with an anonymous YikYak account wants them to?

    I get the importance of anonymity in free speech, believe me. But free speech is a means to an end, not an end in itself. That end, broadly, is a free society. And society works because bad actors can be called to account for their bad actions. If people can do bad things without threat of consequence, the whole thing starts to fall apart.

    Dan Aris

    --
    Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    1. Re:Reality of YikYak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      On the campus I work for, there have been death threats posted on YikYak. Are they credible? There's no way to know. Because we don't know who's sending them. So they have to be treated as credibleâ"and the university simply doesn't have the resources to provide even one person with 24/7 protection, let alone the half-dozen or so that the death threats were issued against.

      Dude, that is completely the wrong way to deal with this.

      In most jurisdictions, it is a crime to make death threats.

      The target of the death threat should report it to police. The police will investigate and get a court order for yikyak to produce the info they have about who made the threat (device, ip address, etc).

      Then the police track them down & slap them with handcuffs.

    2. Re:Reality of YikYak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it happened to me I'd be insisting that I be allowed to exercise my own right to defend myself, up to an including carrying a firearm if I so deemed to appropriate.

    3. Re:Reality of YikYak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really HAVE TO take every threat seriously? Says who?

      Maybe through your (overre-)actions you encouraging death threats. Maybe someone has figured out that they can get someones life miserable (don't really mean direct harm) and you are their tool to make it happen as you are blindly following your rules that don't make sense in particular setting.

    4. Re:Reality of YikYak by danaris · · Score: 1

      From what I understand (and I have only sketchy information on this), the police were contacted, and YikYak was asked for an IP address.

      However, either they refused to give one, or it ended up being some public computer (this is, after all, a university; there are hundreds of public computers on campus). Nothing the police can do about that. Even CSI's reality-bending tricks would have trouble figuring out which of dozens of people who sat at that computer might have sent the message.

      Dan Aris

      --
      Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
    5. Re:Reality of YikYak by asylumx · · Score: 1

      Perhaps that is true in an ideal world, but in the real world, the police make snap judgements on credibility of threats and often times deprioritize this kind of situation because more often than not it is just a troll. Sure, it's wrong, but again this is how the world really works -- so when you receive a threat you have to protect yourself first, then ask others to help protect you. In the GP's example, this means sacrificing some of your education in order to protect your own life.

      Do you trust the police to protect you if you are threatened like this? Remember, I asked about trust, not expectations.

    6. Re:Reality of YikYak by Vokkyt · · Score: 4, Informative

      YikYak runs off phones or via Chrome if you take the time to run YikYak as a package (or whatever the term is) for Chrome. If the device is connected to the school's wifi, they ought be able to get the log-in associated with that IP address at the time of posting, which YikYak stores and readily provides in the case of police investigations.

      The campus I work for has basically taken a much more aggressive position on YikYak and we monitor it...as we remember to. YikYak itself is such a pain in the ass and most of the time it's just students bantering like students (I almost wrote idiots, but given how I was in university, I'm in no position to judge). Most of it is complaints and asking where the next party is.

      Funny enough, YikYak's moderation system actually makes it really hard to deal with the threats that do pop-up because they get removed after 5 downvotes, meaning it's hard for us to find them before the students remove the threats. We effectively cannot take action despite wanting to. I wouldn't expect the YikYak folk to spend time contacting schools where the threats are occurring, but I hope that they log it well enough to allow institutions to take action if they feel that any one student is consistently using the service to post threats.

    7. Re:Reality of YikYak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of pussies have we become when every throwaway unsubstantiated threat gets taken seriously? Here's a hint: the barrier to entry for typing the words "I'm going to kill you" is considerably lower than following through. If you're in the habit of making enemies likely to actually carry it out, maybe you should also be worried about the smart ones who won't give you a warning beforehand.

    8. Re:Reality of YikYak by davydagger · · Score: 1
      Here is the harsh reality:

      Yik Yak has already agreed to co-operate with court orders, and this title is the same alarmist sensationalist fear-monger garbage which gets us involved with things like "The War on Drugs", and "The War on Terror", except changing the threat to a cause we readily identify behind.

      This is pure hype designed to make us scared into giving away our freedoms, a re-branding of the police state to sell it to people with leftist sympathies, nothing more. They are banking the on fact people will have an emotional response rather than think through the consequnces of having an ever-watching police state.

      How many rapes or other violent attacks will this really stop? Then think about how many attacks by the police, and how many people will be ostracized or harrased by the police or university for drugs, political beliefs, or simply being wierd. The real kicker is do you really trust the police to act without court orders?

      I think a good start is getting the university to start getting court orders for rape and other threats and lets make all the complaints public so we can debate this publicly. Perhaps we can get a discussion going at the root of why people feel the need to make these threats, and perhaps ways to express themselves more constructively, without threatening other people.

      The alternative is simply letting the police drag the same terror state into college campuses that is already present in the rest of society. We are told our neighbors or our enemy, and we simply run to the police forking over all rights in the proccess everytime we feel threatened. Every time we feel threatened is everytime the news media decides we need less rights and decides to threaten us.

    9. Re:Reality of YikYak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps that is true in an ideal world, but in the real world, the police make snap judgements on credibility of threats and often times deprioritize this kind of situation because more often than not it is just a troll.

      Correct, but there are two issues:

      1. Preventing the threat from materializing into reality.

      2. Making death threats is a crime.

    10. Re:Reality of YikYak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the campus I work for, there have been death threats posted on YikYak. Are they credible?

      No, they aren't.

      There's no way to know.

      I think what you're trying to say is, there's no way to prove there isn't a bomb. If the bomb turns out to be there and goes off, someone can say,

      -----8-----
      Why didn't the authorities pay attention to the obviously-credible threat posted to Yik-yak?

      Because it wasn't credible.

      How can you say it wasn't credible when the bomb went off?
      -----8-----

      As long as people are too stupid to see the flaw in this, logic will continue to be tortured, and people will invent baroque equivocations about speech and "accountability" and generally throw loaded words and hand-wringing at the problem.

      The root of it is that people are protecting their jobs instead of doing their jobs. There is an epidemic of this. "Adulthood" is phoning it in.

    11. Re:Reality of YikYak by mattventura · · Score: 1

      From what I understand (and I have only sketchy information on this), the police were contacted, and YikYak was asked for an IP address.

      However, either they refused to give one, or it ended up being some public computer (this is, after all, a university; there are hundreds of public computers on campus). Nothing the police can do about that. Even CSI's reality-bending tricks would have trouble figuring out which of dozens of people who sat at that computer might have sent the message.

      Dan Aris

      How is that different from any internet communications platform? If someone hops on a random public computer, they could easily anonymously send those death threats or other nasty messages via an email, some other anonymous website/service, or even through a payphone of all things. The only thing that YikYak provides is convenience. I don't think that if there were no death threats before YikYak, that any of the death threats sent through YikYak would have any shred of credibility. Someone isn't going to say "wow look at this app that I can send death threats through, I think I'll go murder someone that I wasn't going to murder before".

    12. Re:Reality of YikYak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Are they credible? There's no way to know. Because we don't know who's sending them. So they have to be treated as credible

      I would arge that the exact opposite it true. Because we have no way of knowing if a threat is credible, the only logical approach is to assume that *none* of them are. Furthermore, there are very few cases where an anonymous threat could possibly be credible. Threats don't work if you can't back them up, and how do you prove you can back them up if nobody knows who you are? Terrorists don't send in anonymous bomb threats, they send in videotapes in which they have actual hostages, so that people will know they are serious.

    13. Re:Reality of YikYak by danaris · · Score: 1

      > Are they credible? There's no way to know. Because we don't know who's sending them. So they have to be treated as credible

      I would arge that the exact opposite it true. Because we have no way of knowing if a threat is credible, the only logical approach is to assume that *none* of them are. Furthermore, there are very few cases where an anonymous threat could possibly be credible. Threats don't work if you can't back them up, and how do you prove you can back them up if nobody knows who you are? Terrorists don't send in anonymous bomb threats, they send in videotapes in which they have actual hostages, so that people will know they are serious.

      But the difference in this case is that the death threats in question were sent by people claiming to be other (unspecified) students on campus, not random people somewhere halfway across the globe.

      Terrorists take responsibility for crimes because their entire reason for existing isn't killing people or doing property damage—it's spreading terror. If a specific person wanted to kill another person for a specific thing they did on campus (which was the ostensible case in the death threats issued last fall), they have every reason for wanting to remain anonymous. Their purpose is the killing of the person and the message it sends.

      It's not like the anonymity makes it harder for them to kill the person, or harder to have the killing send a racist or classist message (which were both part of the threats sent in this case). Not when they have a platform like YikYak on which to anonymously declare the reason for their murders.

      Dan Aris

      --
      Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
  34. BS and more BS by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    "But Yik Yak's particular design can produce especially harmful consequences"

    The consequence that you only thought that "rude" "offensive" "racicist" "*-phobic" people who posted anonymously on the internet only lived far, far away?

    It really is amazing how weak and thin skinned people today are. Is the nursery school play ground change "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" today replaced by "but name will kill me!" ???

  35. And Shepherds WE shall be... by laurencetux · · Score: 2

    i think that youngins that make such comments should be given instructions on why this is not what a young man should be doing before somebody decides to get "his Brother" and finish said prayer.

    It all boils down to what Judge does a person want to have??

  36. Internet free is always arms-length speech by WorldWarPi · · Score: 1

    If anything Internet speech ought to be protected more than everyday street speech because the listener is almost always more than arms-length away from the speaker. No threat of imminent violence with "fighting words."

  37. Easy Sting Operation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " At Kenyon College, a "yakker" proposed a gang rape at the school's women's center."

    If this allegation is true, any student with a working moral compass could have contacted the local police and campus police to report the proposed gang rape. Undercover police could arrive at the location at the designated time and arrest the organizers and any of the "rape gang." Why all the hysteria unless you are claiming students are immoral beings acting only in their self-interest. Seems we are getting conflicting messages regarding the high social responsibility attitude attributed to the millennials.

  38. News at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This just in: College kids are immature asshats just like high school kids. Who would have thought it?

  39. Here's a novel idea... by facetube · · Score: 2

    If someone's making credible threats of mass violence anonymously, how about GETTING A SUBPOENA TO FIND OUT WHO'S DOING IT? It'll take a few hours at most, and you won't have to obliterate the rule of law or work to actively compromise the computer systems of privately-held US companies.

  40. If it bothers people.....here is a thought.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't use it.

    Same goes for all the twats and face-sitters out there that complain about the same issues. You're engaged in a "social network"....free to everyone (everyone, as in some not normal) what did you think was going to happen?

  41. remove bad YY posts with downvotes by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Musg like Slashdot operates. It takes five downvotes.

  42. Re:Some people shouldn't be allowed on the interne by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

    I once ended up in the same room as a pair of people who had been sending me death threats over the net. It was amazing.

    This is back in 2002, when I was the head admin of a major UK-based Counter-Strike league (Barrysworld, for those with long memories of the UK online gaming scene). This is a good way to make enemies - you can never manage something like that without upsetting people and the Counter-Strike community (back then at least) had more than its fair share of immature pricks.

    Anyway, there's one particular clan in the league which, towards the end of my first season in charge, is picking up a real reputation for hurling quite nasty abuse at their opponents before, during and after games. After one of my admins passes me screenshots showing some really nasty stuff in-game (vitriolic racist abuse) during their latest match, I throw them out of the league.

    This does not sit well with them, particularly as they were in with a shot of winning their divison at the time. There's the inevitable IRC explosion, resulting in a series of quick channel-bans. Then the private messages and e-mails start up. Two of their members do not want to let this drop and, for the next month or so, I get a string of abuse from them. It starts with insults, but when those don't get a response from me, ramps up to threats. They're going to do unspeakable things to me, to my parents, my grandparents, my dog (I don't have a dog, but hey) and so on. And... I ignore it. Actually, no, I have a good laugh at some of it (it's very much in the camp of "a 16 year old's idea of what scary sounds like).

    And then I go with my own clan to a big LAN party - one with a whole UK-profile, in a major venue, split over three days. And I meet up there with some of the other people involved in the league. And one of them mentions to me that my two little stalkers are both present at the event.

    So I go over. And I introduce myself. And I am lovely and polite. I smile lots. And I remind them, in a "ha ha, isn't this all funny" manner of some of the things they've been saying to me.

    I am not physically imposing in any way. Tall, yes. But kinda scrawny as well. I don't think I'd have a clue how to even go about making myself look intimidating. But I've never seen two people look so scared in my life. I think it was just the acute social discomfort I was causing rather than any kind of menace.

    It was utterly hilarious. Never heard a squeak from either of them ever again.

  43. Controversy? by codeButcher · · Score: 1
    Lets assume for the moment that all instances of [insert favourite bandwagon here]phobic yaks and other {GASP} contraventions of political correctness constitute just a small part of the total use of the app. If we concentrate on the major part of its use, what does that leave us with?

    Yet Another Knickknack to cause even more attention deficit amongst Young Inexperienced Kids.

    --
    Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
  44. the irony - Lord of the Flies by kenj123 · · Score: 1

    I like the first example in the article. the professors were lecturing about post-apocalyptic culture while the students were anonymously jeering them on yukyuk(my name). There was a book written 60+ years ago exactly about it, 'Lord of the Flies'. Once the veneer of civilization is gone, anything can happen. Sounds like a good episode for Black Mirror.

  45. Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Victimhood Identity Politics has been worming its way into the academy since the third wave feminists started infiltrating academia in the 60s and 70s. And they were pushing for speech codes even then.

  46. Identitarians Don't Want Police Involvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As the UVA Rape Hoax showed, they don't want the police to handle campus cases because that pesky "due process of law" prevents them from punishing males before they've been convicted.

    They prefer Star Chambers where the lives of men can be ruined without offering them a chance to fight back. Much better for instituting conformkity and social control to the identitarian agenda.

  47. No-go zones for whiners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The continued shock, surprise and outrage that comes with giving random people you don't know a massive audience only to be outraged when the obvious happens (see twitter) is akin to leaving a stack of hundreds held in place by a 400oz solid gold bar on top of your Bugatti in a well lit Wal-Mart parking lot overnight and being shocked, outraged and surprised when it turns up missing the next day.

    Why should anonymous forums where people know what they are getting into be hijacked by those who have no business participating or non-participants who lurk only to judge and be outraged by what they hear?

    The only rules you need are ones to prevent escape to minimize damage to unwilling human non-participants. The same damage that happens when people I know get linked in, viruses and spyware shit and I pay for it by virtue of being in their contact book.

    In short grow a pair you shriveled maggots and stop judging people.

  48. Anonymous, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it's like 4chan, only with geo-tagging to limit what you see to messages posted from people physically near you?

  49. Free, yes but anonymous? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    I think the real debate is not so much about freedom of speech - I would hope that everyone basically agrees with that to a large extent - but rather about anonymous speech. There are times at which this is essential: spilling the beans on a large corporation or a powerful government. However it is inevitably abused by idiots wanting to deliberately upset people for no good reason. Generally I tend to find anonymous speech far, far less interesting and insightful than non-anonymous...except for the odd exceptions which can be extremely important to learn about. What we really need is difficult, anonymous speech so that people are only willing to go to the lengths required for important messages and not just to troll the rest of us.

    1. Re:Free, yes but anonymous? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I think the real debate is not so much about freedom of speech - I would hope that everyone basically agrees with that to a large extent...

      Except if you read the article I linked you discover that the author of that article does NOT agree with that. They appear to feel that no one should be allowed to express ideas which they find unacceptable.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Free, yes but anonymous? by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      I've always felt that if someone calls for the restriction on free speech they should be required to wear a muzzle for 24 hours. Maybe after a day or so of being deprived of their rights, they will be more tolerant of other peoples.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

  50. Re:Can this be used for prostitution? by VAXcat · · Score: 2

    Like William Gibson says, "The strreet finds its own uses for things".

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
  51. Scary part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The part that frightens people is the locality elements undermines their dismissive attitude of the bad people cover from elsewhere. They can't say that there isn't racism, hatred, or bigotry where they live.

    That's the part that really scares people. They can't ignore the human condition, and present day society's disheartening trends by thinking that they are absolved from do anything to change it because that happens elsewhere, and they don't personally know any examples of it happening where they live.

  52. I don't see a problem here. by jasenj1 · · Score: 1

    "The app's privacy policy prevents schools from identifying users without a subpoena, court order or search warrant, or an emergency request from a law-enforcement official with a compelling claim of imminent harm."

    So if someone issues a death threat, etc. you call the police, they get a subpoena, and track down the idiot who posted it.

    Once this happens a few times (in every locality where Yik Yak is used) word gets out not to do that. Or, Yik Yak and law enforcement are overwhelmed with subpoena processing for trolls. If Yik Yak can't process requests fast enough is there some sort of penalty they face? If Yik Yak corporate headquarters are out of state or out of the US, how would such penalties be imposed?

    Or, signal to noise ratio gets way too low and the app collapses under the weight of trolls. Or the trolls enjoy trolling each other on it (4chan).

  53. as usual by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    As usual, academia's response when confronted by the ultimate result of their own mores: reflexively play jackbooted fascists. "How can we stop this? How can we control this?"

    Free speech is free for everyone, including assholes. That is ALSO including racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. You don't get to define what speech is free.

    Look, I personally DON'T believe in unfettered free speech. However, I'm sincerely amused by watching the Academic Left that has stridently insisted for 50 years that pretty much *everything* must be allowed, deeply discomforted when confronted by (human) nature, red in tooth and claw.

    --
    -Styopa
  54. Flag mechanism not used? by conoviator · · Score: 1

    Apple requires all "social" apps to incorporate a flag mechanism for malicious content. App providers are supposed to moderate. The Yik Yak iOS app does provide for flagging. So, I am wondering:

    1. Is Yik Yak not providing meaningful moderation?

    2. Are the receivers of the malicious posts not flagging?

  55. Privacy or trust: Choose one by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

    Yik Yak isn't a valid comparison to the rest of the Internet, because it is only anonymous. It is the smartphone app for /b/, and it comes with the same issues.

    If they want to change the app to something that has a persistent ID, then there is all sorts of methods to start weeding out assholes. The moment they do that, though, it stops being completely anonymous and starts becoming just a localized version of Twitter.

    Even this site relies on pseudonyms to maintain some level of reputation. Anonymous posts have no reputation, no history of being a productive or disruptive member. The idea of being able to be completely anonymous requires acceptance that some will misuse it. Either embrace it or stay away from it, because there simply is no way to "fix" it without changing it into something else entirely.

    --
    Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
  56. Free Speech is protected but not your anonymity by dtjohnson · · Score: 1

    Your right to free speech is protected but your right to make your comments anonymously is not. Colleges (and society) should insist that all yik yak comments be attributed to their source. If the source of yik yaks is not identified, they can be banned. An anonymous commenter has no legal standing to bring a complaint about his or her free speech right being infringed. You don't have a 'right' to write anonymous letters to your campus newspaper editor that attack someone. You don't have the right to wear a mask while you walk around campus verbally attacking ethnic groups. This yik yak problem seems like an easy thing to fix.

  57. deliciously ironic by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    American Universities and faculty:
    1) spend the last 50 years attacking, contravening, and destroying every norm, convention, and social more.
    2) get upset when their social mores are violated.

    --
    -Styopa
  58. The real problem by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

    The real problem here is that Yik Yak is just a stupid name for anything. I wouldn't use anything called Yik Yak.

    --
    http://www.acetonestudio.com
  59. Lots of disturbing things on the internet.. by Thisstatementisfalse · · Score: 1

    There are lots of disturbing things out there on the Internet. I'm not sure why an app that appeals to mostly college kids who spew random comments and overall trash on it, is being targeted instead of other awful material on the Internet.

  60. Subpoena by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    They won't respond without a subpoena. So what? That's actually a reasonable position. Subpoena them. If somebody is being threatening to the point where it should not be permitted in our society, then you go after the threatening person using the law.

    Welcome to having a social contract. I know it's easier to have knee-jerk reactions than it is to use due process. But that's also how lynch mobs existed. I'd much rather require the subpoena.

  61. Freedom and Responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All freedom divorced from responsibility is not freedom at all. Is it censorship to reveal the source of speech? They still get to speak, right? They still get to say what they want so it's not censorship. With identification they just get to take responsibility for their speech like the adult they pretend to be!

  62. u dum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You didn't even read what he wrote! His "arguments" don't matter in the least. He takes both and none of the positions at the same time. To do that requires being disingenuous. He even said that's what he does in the first sentence but you fell for his trolling anyway! He wasn't even trolling! OMG guy. You have some gun issues you need to have checked out. No one was even arguing about guns yet you couldn't help but go on a tirade. We have professional psychiatric specialists available to help so you should go see one. Isn't that reasonable?

  63. You almost got it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ass of an ass with the head of an elephant shoving its own trunk up said ass, would be much more descriptive, imho.

  64. Correctamundo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EXACTLY! This AC gets it, guys.

  65. ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Identitarian isn't even a fucking word, MORAN.

  66. nothing new by allo · · Score: 1

    there are jodel and jaulen, now yikyak ... no new concept.

  67. Re:Some people shouldn't be allowed on the interne by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    yep. Death threats and bomb threats on the internet are bullshit so often that literally anything in your home is more likely to murder you than some punk on the internet.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  68. Re:Some people shouldn't be allowed on the interne by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    The stupid lameness filter is triggering for this post for no reason. If people can tell me what the algorithm has a problem with I would appreciate it. The error is very unhelpful and vague.

    I posted my actual post to postbin which is what I do when slashdot decides it wants to be retarded.

    http://pastebin.com/v4ApP6H2

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  69. Can't Stop Won't Stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do they expect to ban this? Are they going punish students who are seen using the app? That's basically impossible to enforce. Does YikYak accept requests to block service in a given area? I doubt they have any way to control the use of this app at all.

  70. wouldn't you rather know who the racists are? by HBI · · Score: 1

    I would. The current construction doesn't stop racism/whateverism you choose and moreover denies us the knowledge of who is who.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:wouldn't you rather know who the racists are? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I would. The current construction doesn't stop racism/whateverism you choose and moreover denies us the knowledge of who is who.

      Your logic assumes that people can never change, and that racists should basically just live off of tax dollars or become criminals to survive.

      I'm not really a big fan of solutions that involve blacklisting people for life anytime they do anything that a large number of people find offensive. I don't even support that if somebody commits homicide or any other heinous crime.

  71. Designing a society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Digital online society is just that - another society, with its own members and its own rule.

    It looks like yit yak tried to design a society but it turned out a bit dysfunctional. Anenomity leads to lack of responsibility. And lack of responsibility leads to
    Dysfunctional society.

    My solution would be to add a feedback loop to the system - a up/down vote feature plus displaying messages by rank. Not unlike certain online forums.

    The idea is to allow the society to self regulate itself to reflect its norms. For example, if most people within 1.5 mile radius are pro-rape (God forbid), then such hate messages will be viewed by most people in that society. However, we expect that people with normal ethical values are the majority in most circumstances.

  72. GIFT by BadPirate · · Score: 1

    Just a more local application of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. No surprises here.

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/co...

    --
    - Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.