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."
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."
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
Not all speech is protected.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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?
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actual liberals are against censorship. But that's a statement in English, not in Americanese.
Ezekiel 23:20
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.