Slashdot Mirror
Top Tech Firms Urged To Step Up Online Abuse Fightback (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report on The Guardian: Top tech companies are talking to grassroots organisations across the globe to organise a fightback on their platforms against online abuse, hate speech, misogyny and stalking. Facebook, Twitter and Google are reaching out to women's groups, NGOs and communities in Africa, America, India, Europe and the Middle East as the scale of abuse online continues to increase. But their attempts to foster a "counter-speech" movement to challenge the violent misogyny, racism, threats, intimidation and abuse that flood social media platforms have prompted some of the communities they are trying to empower to question whether they are ducking their own responsibilities. Sarah Green, of the End Violence against Women coalition, said: "Any moves by social media companies to support, encourage and empower individuals and groups to resist and counter abuse is very welcome."
Azealia Banks gets to keep Twitter account after Wishing "Gang Rape" on Sarah Palin
Azealia Banks is known for saying exactly what she thinks, and a lot of times, she can be pretty offensive. Even if you aren’t a Sarah Palin fan, Banks’ Twitter war with the former Alaska governor got pretty ugly. Despite the rapper telling her Twitter followers and everyone else watching that Palin should be “gang raped,” among other awful things, Twitter decided that she had not broken any rules and her account would not be suspended.
come join the counter-speech against evil.
Nice way to drive page-view revenue with a veneer of social responsibility. Now I can be socially responsible from the comfort of my own living-room, I just have to watch this banner ad first.
. . . . how does that effect the "Common Carrier"-type protections of the admittedly-hated Communications Decency Act ? As I recall, acting as a de-facto common carrier prevented liability for content.
So, if providers start discriminating on content, do they not also lose the immunity from liability ?
I'm not really sure where the line is on this, so ask the question here on Slashdot. . .
All I see is talk about misogyny, but misandry is no more acceptable and should be talked about as well. Personally, I despise people who engage in either stuff I certainly do not approve of certain kinds of girls/women disguising their misandry as "feminism."
the scale of abuse online continues to increase
I didn't see any evidence for this statement. I suppose it is reasonable to assume that if the Internet gains one million users, some small percentage of them will be jerks. But TFA also says:
She said the evidence from the meetings was that social media was overwhelmingly positive for the women and girls
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Wrongthink is doublepus ungood, must be banned.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Right, I guess you remember the days when people communicated by stone tablets and people had thick enough skin to simply shrug off threats of death/rape/etc.
Are many people being offended by things they should just deal with? Sure.
Are you right to dismiss all forms of online harassment as people being thin-skinned whiners who are perpetually offended? Absolutely not.
There are some real issues here that should not be willfully ignored.
There is no "stopping" abuse of any kind. Any time you try to fully eliminate bad things, innocent or nearly innocent people get caught up in the zero-tolerance policies and everyone loses. The offenders get caught, (Yay!), but when there are no more offenders, the harmful offense gets re-defined to create more offenders.
The prohibition of alcohol came from a good place. Homes and lives were ruined because of absolutely rampant alcoholism. But when the fight for absolute abolition took to banning every single alcoholic beverage, an illicit trade formed and with it came a different kind of harm.
Zero tolerance policies as they pertain to gang violence in schools was amazingly effective... until all the horrible things were appropriately reduced. After that, the books were thrown at minor offenders (https://goo.gl/4DQdKR).
The strong prosecution of hate crimes is a good thing. But what happens when a younger generation who has never actually experienced hate crimes (such as being physically assaulted for being a particular religion or race) seeks to re-define what is considered hate? Or racism. Or sexism? What happens when they lower the bar so that a previously welcoming phrase like "America is a melting pot" is redefined as offensive, potentially hateful, speech? We see that today when "microaggressions" are now 'a concern' and how the offended (not *harmed*) are asserting some sort of power for their being offended.
When you seek to "stop" any harm outright and completely, you inevitably come to the point where the harm is so rare, infrequent, or of immeasurably small effect that the ongoing effort begins to victimize people instead of protect them.
But what do you do instead? Actual harm is happening-- how do you stop that harm? The answer is simple, but not easy: hard work. When someone does something harmful, find that person and punish that person. Yes, that's a lot of work, but the punishment is targeted and the restrictions on non-harmful actions are non-existent. Target genuinely harmful actions with strong enforcement and leave the rest to personal control (facilitating visible blocking & ignoring with the option to report) and community moderation (like Slashdot). The aim should always be to reduce harm, but never to eliminate offense.
Lastly, as it is common with the current wave of activism, I will assume that someone will say, "But no one should have to see written abuse online to the point where someone then has to hit an ignore/block button!" to which I respond, "Yes, they should. For the same of protecting the free exchange of ideas (good, bad, and infuriating) and for the protection of people against prejudicial reactions. Without the risk for online abuse, there would be no disagreement and discussion online could only be the repetition of a single idea over and over again."
It's not "some" corporation, it's thousands of corporations, and if you don't like them, you can add another one that censors your way at next to no cost.
Yes, welcome to the real world, where different people actually make different choices.
the scale of abuse online continues to increase
I didn't see any evidence for this statement. I suppose it is reasonable to assume that if the Internet gains one million users, some small percentage of them will be jerks. But TFA also says:
Read the subtext.
It says: "People don't think this is important, so we'll frame it as "growing". Maybe this will get them to do something."
"Abuse" is defined as "speech I don't agree with." Therefore, any threats lobbed at Palin don't count.
A long time ago, in the back woods far, far away, I was taught as a wee lad that sticks and stones would break my bones, but words will never hurt me. I believe some of may have missed that lesson.
That's because it's a stupid lesson.
With force, you can hit someone over the head with a rock. With speech you can lead an entire nation to war. Which of those do you think is more powerful?
Anyone trying to control someone else's speech is a fucking asshole and needs to be sent to a small island with other similar assholes.
Ah so you propose that people should be forced to engage with other people? You would destroy freedom of association to protect freedom of speech? These are private organisations, not the government.
If you don't like what I have to say then leave,
Ha, no! If I don't like what you'll have to say, then I'll say why I think you're gravely mistaken.
If you try to stop me...well...good luck with that.
So if you get kickbanned from a forum, you'll just keep on coming back and back and back, circumventing the bans, breaking the ToS and annoying people?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Lets face its, the entire movement is about guilt and revenge. Those who we normally think of as privileged who support it can claim whatever they like but the truth is they do so out of sense of guilt, largely the result of decades of brain washing in public schools. The marginalized groups who support it do so out of a sense they are entitled to some kind of revenge, and they should have that revenge even if the people who really dealt them and their ancestry the wrongs are long dead or rotting in an old folks home some place ( or should be in the case Bill Clinton ).
Azealia Banks a black woman can say anything she wants under these new rules. She can even say the sort of thing that might be considered a personal threat an potentially expose "privileged group" to prosecution, without any fear or reprisal. Now ordinarily being woman would by Sara Palin some entitlement to protection under these new 'rules' but you she committed a mortal sin by espousing hatred for men, so has been excommunicated from the church of the victimized.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Dude has a point. For example, what defines 'racism' - according to many people, the term includes anyone who disagrees with the 'Black Lives Matter' movement in any aspect. Threats? Of course there's the obvious stuff, like 'I'm going to come to your house and kill you' stuff (though deletion of same may constitute tampering with evidence, eh?) But on the other hand we have overly-coddled snowflakes who claim there's somehow a credible threat from some idiot scrawling "Trump 2016" in chalk on their college campus.
I'm also curious to see a complete list of these groups... mostly because there are quite a few groups out there who you definitely do not want setting definitions here.
There is a danger in this, after all - the danger being that political speech is stifled if the hoi polloi decide that something is 'hate' or 'racist' merely because they disagree with it. The two examples I listed up top are true stories, so it's not like GP's post is paranoia...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The root cause is human nature. That'll be hard to address.
I know that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics however when the truth is no defense and cannot be stated then we have really gone way too far down a bad road. Remember that freedom of speech is still being free after controversial speech.
I'm sure everyone agrees that abuse or stalking is a problem but the biggest concern for me on social media is the tendency to get very offended by a one-off comment someone makes then proceed to ruin their lives. These spontaneous mobs fueled by righteous indignation are much scarrier to me than spam from some bully.
I am sure that would be a very clever and apt comment, if I could make *any* sense out of it.
Near as I can tell, you advocate censorship. Who decides what is acceptable and not? Here on slashdot, its the mods, who mod everything to the right of Mao Tse Tung and Castro into oblivion.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, and lefties think the same thing in the opposite direction.
I've had lots of posts modded in a battle between one group calling it a troll, and the other calling it insightful. opinion tug-a-war.
And if you think it's just left wingers, perform an experiment. Post a message asking "Why would someone even want an assualt rifle?" It will hit -1 troll with a bullet (that's a joke son)
That's just how it is man, people have different opinions.
Even more importantly, posts do not get "modded into oblivion". All you have to do is change the level at which you browse Slashdot. You can see everything posted, not a bit of censorship.
Slashdot is far and away the most repressive leftist forum I have ever seen, with mods absusing their power to censor literally anything but the hard-left party line.
Don't get out much, eh? Aside from no censorship taking place at all, you can't really be saying that everyone has to march in lockstep agreement with everything you post.
That's not even how life works, unless you are in an echo chamber where no one can express anything but approval for your opinion. The bubble gets lonely. Accept that not everyone will agree with you.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
And what happens if the speech is legal, but offensive ? That's the issue. But, somehow, people seem to believe that there's a right to Not Be Offended. . .
Dude has a point. For example, what defines 'racism' - according to many people, the term includes anyone who disagrees with the 'Black Lives Matter' movement in any aspect.
It's a big world, with whackos on both left and right. I've been told to go die in a fire for asking what a regular person is going to use an assault rifle for.
So there are going to be people on the left who are just as nuts.
But what we do in polarized America has turned into people taking the most extreme elements left or right, and using a really broad brush to paint anyone they don't agree with as whoever it is they hate. That's how left wingers can paint every conservative as Ted Cruz Dominionists, and right wingers can paint anyone who disagrees with them as Chanty Binx acolytes.
When in fact, not many Republicans believe in shutting down the Government or America becoming a Dominionist nation as Cruz wishes, or that whatever the hell Chanty Binx is is representative of all Democrats.
But in modern day America, we have been programmed to paint anyone who disagrees with us as not human, therefore not worthy of humane treatment.
Hell, I enjoy arguing with people in here, It doesn't make me disrespect their selfhood. But that paints me as inhuman on both sides.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
>Slashdot is far and away the most repressive leftist forum I have ever seen, with mods absusing their power to censor literally anything but the hard-left party line.
You don't get out much.
Or understand the word "left" in a political context.
There is something like a slashdot party line, without a party--there are a lot of core groupthink ideas you come across here. Open Source Good, Microsoft Bad, People (Other than us) Stupid, Anyone trying to tell other people what to do bad, Social Justice bad, Overt racism bad, cool tech toys good, Star Trek good, Lorf of the Rings (the book) good, etc...
It's still OK (you won't get booted) to challenge any of those positions with logic and reason, but you generally have to make a much more cogent post and still risk more downmodding.
But that line is WAY out-of-sync with the extreme political left, and there's no "party" leadership or organization coordinating talking points and power struggles.
Those who we normally think of as privileged who support it can claim whatever they like but the truth is they do so out of sense of guilt
Nonsense.
Azealia Banks a black woman can say anything she wants under these new rules.
Also nonsense. ...
Really? Nonsense?!?!?!
Care to explain why Twitter has allowed her - a black woman - to keep her account after she called for the gang rape of woman?
Care to explain why Whoopi Goldberg - a black woman - still has a job on TV after saying what Roman Polanski did to a 13--year-old white girl "wasn't 'rape rape'"?
The only nonsense is what you posted.
I'm under the impression that it's the nuts that have the loudest voices or get the most attention. It's almost as if the media intentional seeks them out to plaster all over national news, I'm not even sure it's news any more it's like shock reporting where they find the craziest thing to air just to bring in viewers it might as well be News at 10 with Howard Stern.
There has not been a presidential candidate worth voting for since before I was old enough to vote your choices are... let me see which is less likely to completely screw everything up.
Right, because sexism/racism is power + prejudice. It's impossible to be sexist against men just like it is impossible to be racist against white.
The sad thing about your comment, MRA's do have valid legal grievances (divorce court, domestic disputes, child custody, bodily integrity, etc to name a few) . Compare that to man-spreading and patriarchy. As much bat shit crazy there is in the man-o-sphere there just as much bat shit in feminist circles.
You sound like Steve Shives who summarily dismisses the concerns of fathers that want to see their kids because of discriminatory child custody laws but think that the God-like Patriarchy is a real threat to everyone everywhere!
I'm under the impression that it's the nuts that have the loudest voices or get the most attention. It's almost as if the media intentional seeks them out to plaster all over national news, I'm not even sure it's news any more it's like shock reporting where they find the craziest thing to air just to bring in viewers it might as well be News at 10 with Howard Stern.
Bill Maher had an interesting insight into some of what what you are talking about https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
At the present time, there is a lot of SJW stuff in the news. Partly because they are kooks, bent on whining about everything, and partly because people expect kookhattery from the right wing, so it isn't really news when one of them gets caught in the Restroom at Denny's giving Oral sex to some random dude stranger before going to a fundraising dinner to make Gay marriage illegal again. Kooks...Kooks everywhere...
There has not been a presidential candidate worth voting for since before I was old enough to vote your choices are... let me see which is less likely to completely screw everything up.
Does such a person even exist? Anything short of perfection is verboten. Hell, we had a president impeached because of a blowjob. Id if the worst thing you ever did was get a blowjob, you aren't doing too bad.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Riiight, another blinding insight from the resident genius.
You provide a hallmark example of presuming you are intelligent because you're a lefty nutcase, and the nuttier you get the smarter you think you are.
Thin skinned little snowflake arent ya?
While I'm not actually a lefty (except by wingnut standards) It's so interesting that people who castigate anyone who doesn't agree with them as a lefty or socialists are...
so.. damn.. sensitive. I mean sweet jeebus on a hallmark card, once upon a time a right winger was considered the strong silent type, a Waynesque individual, who rode out the ups and downs of life with aplomb.
Now it's getting hard to tell you all from SJW's, everything upsets y'all so badly.
Anyhow thanks for playing, if you get all pissed off because people disagree with you - which is what modding down is, you really need to get to infowars or something. Be among only your own kind, and people with different opinions won't intrude upon your sensitive disposition. Or stick around here and have some discussion with people who might not always agree with ya.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.