Imzy, the Kinder and Gentler Reddit By Ex Employee, Is Shutting Down (imzy.com)

Imzy, a social media site led by ex-Reddit employee Dan McComas, announced on Wednesday that it will be closing its doors next month. The site was launched last year with much fanfare. Imzy sought to offer a community that didn't have trolls, one of the reasons that led McComas to leave Reddit two years ago. Ever since its launch, Imzy struggled to gain traction. According to web analytics firm SimilarWeb, the website was visited less than 400,000 times last month. McComas didn't elaborate why his service was shutting down, though he wrote: Some of you have been here since our launch into beta and some are brand new. We've loved getting to know all of you and seeing you build communities and make new friends. Unfortunately, we were not able to find our place in the market. We still feel that the internet deserves better and hope that we see more teams take on this challenge in the future.

Comments

A Community Without Trolls

[sexconker]

A community without trolls is like a city without crime.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[computational super]

More like a city without citizens. One man's troll is another man's freedom fighter - if you're going to get banned for saying anything that offends anyone, which is what "safe spaces" always devolve into, you learn not to say anything. Doesn't lead to a very engaging user experience.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Baron_Yam]

>if you're going to get banned for saying anything that offends anyone, which is what "safe spaces" always devolve into, you learn not to say anything.

Which is why instead of a 'safe space', you need to find professional moderators your user community will come to trust to be fair about enforcing rules despite the fact that any community rule set will have grey areas.

Those kinds of people cost money, and given that Reddit-like sites don't seem to generate mountains of the stuff, it's unlikely you'll see them except for serious issues that are likely to cause legal problems for the company.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[HornWumpus]

SJW circle jerks could be a viable business model and would improve the average IQ of the rest of the web.

Other sites could look for a 'Imzy' cookie (yes I know, shouldn't be able to see it) and just shadow ban those dweebs immediately. e.g. /. would have them post with initial moderation of (-1, troll).

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[guises]

When everything is legal, there are no criminals.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[dunnomattic]

dropping my sig...

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[fightinfilipino]

i can't help but notice that when it's folks telling racists or misogynists to stop, it's a "safe space", but when entitled white folks whinge about being called out on their racism/misogynism, it's "reverse racism" or "needs a moderator".

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

Your ignorance is showing.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

With a system like reddit's, moderators are almost beside the point. Wrongthinkers get downvoted into oblivion and may as well not be there at all even if they don't take the hint and actually leave, so every sub gradually evolves into a useless circlejerk. Mods - especially terrible ones - help that process along, but the issue is much more inherent and systemic. On top of that it makes things much easier to manipulate by outside groups (or admins) who want to push agendas.

(Worth pointing out that /. pioneered the 'karma'-style self-moderation thing, so in a way this is all you guys' fault...)

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[apoc.famine]

I once came up with a technical way to design a system that reduced the need for mods. There were two major issues with it, when I play-tested it. The first was that how it worked was so opaque that most users would never understand it. The second was that it just formed echo chambers. I guess keeping the facebook crowd and the 4chan crowd confined to their own threads would be ok, but then the game for the trolls becomes exploring the limits of the mod system. Are you safe with 10/1 good/troll posts, or can you bump that up to 8/1? Can you get the mods to tighten the system enough that non-trolls start to get identified?

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how everyone seems to label the people they disagree with "racist". It's almost as if the word has been abused and has lost all meaning to the point where it's basically a synonym for "someone I don't like" now.

But that's probably just my white privilege talking.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[computational super]

I like how he didn't say anything remotely racist, but you actually did, and you fail to see the irony.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

entitled white folks

At least you've provided a good example of actual racism.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[dpidcoe]

I guess keeping the facebook crowd and the 4chan crowd confined to their own threads would be ok, but then the game for the trolls becomes exploring the limits of the mod system. Are you safe with 10/1 good/troll posts, or can you bump that up to 8/1? Can you get the mods to tighten the system enough that non-trolls start to get identified?

Yep. As someone with a lot of trolling experience and a pretty high success ratio, I've always felt that the more rules a place has, the funner of a target it is (at least up until the point where interaction is so regulated you might as well be talking to computers). Whenever I went after a target in a strictly moderated community, I not only had a way better understanding of the rules than them (because I've spent time prepping for it), but also had more experience being on the wrong side of them and knew exactly how far I could go. Then it was just a simple matter of riling up the target to the point they step over the line and recruiting a moderator to dispose of them. And even if the moderator is good enough to realize what's up and refuse to play ball, I still get my fun because I can rile the community up about the clear double standard when it comes to enforcing things.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Places with no rules are great to troll people.. turn around and then have a reasonable discussion. Rule crazy places.. or even places that just have lots of rules.. say habbo
You troll the place and not the people I laugh till I cry when I say or do something funny and a box pops up telling me it's "not the habbo way"

Only stupid people need heavy moderation. Because without it they're constantly getting told they're fucksticks and it hurts their feelings.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Baron_Yam]

Random moderating with random meta-moderating seems to limit the issue here, but it certainly doesn't stop it.

There's certainly very little serious guidance from the admins to keep the site as a legitimate tech news site. Once you have advertising, the lure of that income is bound to make you value page views over the quality of the content being viewed.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[computational super]

I can rile the community up about the clear double standard

That's why Reddit has been so successful - their communities don't care about double standards (embrace them, actually).

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

More like a city without citizens. One man's troll is another man's freedom fighter - if you're going to get banned for saying anything that offends anyone, which is what "safe spaces" always devolve into, you learn not to say anything. Doesn't lead to a very engaging user experience.

Not quite. Outise the internet (for example in the business world) a "safe space" just means you can expect that is something makes you uncomfortable and you don't feel comfortable confronting the person doing it you can report it to the authorities (HR) and expect that they will take your complaint seriously (rather than laugh at or ignore you), exercise professional discretion (rather than gossip about your complaint or force you to confront the person you weren't comfortable confronting), and take reasonable steps to solve the problem (rather than ignoring it unless it would also make them personally uncomfortable).

It's only the tumblr crowd that thinks your supposed to be able to somehow know what will offend arbitrary strangers and avoid doing it without any feedback, and the knee jerk conservative 'old boys club' that thinks just because they don't mid it it can't be a legitimate concern to anyone else who view "we've had complaints can you tone it down" as some form of oppression rather than a request to use better manners.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

This is only true if you keep thinking of 'moderation' as being something a 'moderator' or even the 'community' does (e.g. using Karma points), but if you put 'moderation' back in to the hands of the individual users then they can 'self-moderate', heck I thought of a way that you could do 'friend moderation'...e.g. allow your friend's to help moderate a topic. I didn't code it but it can't be rocket science.

Basically it's just a filter on 'bad think' words, terms concepts & 'bad think' users. Everyone could manage their own & you share it with your 'friends' who can accept or reject the whole thing or only parts of it. And like a 'blockchain' it could be update in real-time so if a friend of yours reads an article/comment that they find objectionable & mark it so you won't see it (presuming you've elected to give a friend or friend's that power).

After all 'moderation' is just another name for a 'filtering system', let end-users 'self filter'. If you don't want to filter than you'll see every comment profane or otherwise.

I don't see that monetizing this with ads would be all that difficult & would be even more 'directed'. So if you don't have filters may be you get ads to all the porn sites, but hey that's your choice, if your a grandma who thinks 'gay' is a dirty word you get only the "Baby's R US' & similar ads.

I really don't see how hard it could be in a 'social media' world to set up a 'friends moderation' system like this.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't help but notice you're a racist piece of shit.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

More like a city without citizens.

I agree with your remark.

Clint Eastwood said recently : "“Secretly everybody's getting tired of political correctness, kissing up. That's the kiss-ass generation we're in right now. We're really in a pussy generation. Everybody's walking on eggshells."

Whatever you think of Clint, if your mind is open you will be forced to admit he had a point about political correctness and the weak-minded
fools who embrace it.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[computational super]

your supposed to be able

you're

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm genuinely curious about what this kind of activity (trolling) brings you and your colleagues. Sucking people into pointless and unnerving arguments on the Internet is pretty close to the bottom of the list of things that could make me happy. Do you just hate people ?

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not the original AC, I have already modded this thread so I can't comment as myself.

What a stupid and simple dichotomy. You don't need to hate people to enjoy taking advantage of their hypocrisy and naivete. Occasionally you can even get through to people in ways that directly arguing with them never would. One time a dumb pearl-clutching woman complaining about hate speech actually told me she thought it would be better if we just rounded up all of the people she decided were nazis into camps. It was hilarious, she even deleted her account.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is exactly why reddit is such a shit pit. You can only voice your opinion if the SJWs approve of the message. Which is to say, if your opinions are identical to theirs.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you pay someone they no longer have biases! Genius!

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Opportunist]

That works if, and only if, the community doesn't allow taking the discussion to the meta-level. I actually mod for a board that has very simple rules:

1) Admins are right. In any and all cases.
2) Yes there are rules. Read them. Heed them. Try to skirt them and test their limits and you'll meet rule 1.
3) Yes, people know that. No need to point it out to them.

This requires a few things, though. First of all, VERY mature and level headed admins, and a generally mature board audience that prefers discussing actual topics over board politics. And your admins should be able to out-argue any troll they encounter.

Of course if you have people who think they have any "rights" on your board because they bothered to register, have a low subscriber ID and/or a few thousand postings done, you should maybe point out that the board is owned by someone and that he, and he alone, says who gets to write on his board. Don't like it, go make your own, with blackjack and hookers for all I care.

Such statements, given to trolls that try to incite a "revolt", usually end in "Online boards are no democracy. They are tiny dictatorships. And the main difference between them and real dictatorships is that you're free to leave whenever you want to. In your particular case, we'd really prefer if you did".

(Usually we make that decision easy for him by kicking him off)

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Opportunist]

So... brothink instead of groupthink? Whoever fields the most friends is right?

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[computational super]

I finally gave up on reddit when I submitted a post that had a few thousand up votes before the mods decided to delete it with no explanation. At least on Slashdot they just never accept your contributions.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[dpidcoe]

You're talking about a community with basically no rules other than an admin run dictatorship though. You may have rules (and even lots of them), but actual enforcement is left up to the sole discretion of the admins, and it sounds like they're free to do whatever they see fit. The effect of that is basically that you may call them rules, but it's really just guidelines about the social norms of the place. That's a fine system and probably one of the harder ones to mess with (provided, as you say, that you have good and level-headed admins), but nothing at all like the kind of rule-bound system I'm talking about here.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[dpidcoe]

On the off-chance that you really are genuinely curious, the simple answer is that I find it hilarious. I'm not forcing other people to get involved in a dumb argument, it's 100% their choice. I also consider it a public service, as it's teaching them (or if not them, possibly other observers) a valuable lesson about why sometimes it's best to just drop a discussion when it's clear you're not having any impact on the other person. Of course, most people would rather just escalate it to a screaming match (and usually expose themselves as hypocrites in the process) rather than let someone be wrong on the internet.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolling is subjective. These days, just disagreeing with someone is enough to get flagged as a troll.

Here are some tips for Danny-boy if he decides to start up a community site again:

1) Community exists only when people are allowed to communicate. Sometimes that involves controversy and people arguing. Trying to stifle natural communications is only going to push people away. Censorship is disgusting in all forms and is a far bigger problem than anything deemed to be "trolling", so stop being such a control-freak.

2) You aren't supposed to "find" a place in the market, you should have known your place and had a business plan for at least the next 5 to 10 years before you even started up the site.

3) Perseverance. When you start something, stick with it. This site is being shut down only one year (maybe less) after it was launched. Seriously, is that how these millennials think? If something doesn't immediately work out, just give up?

4) I had never even heard of Imzy before the post today on Slashdot reporting that it's shutting down. Perhaps if you try something like this again, you'll remember the importance of advertising and spreading the word.

I hope you learned your lesson, kid.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Opportunist]

It's the only system that is troll-proof. If, and only if, you have a long standing history of level headed admin decisions. What makes or breaks this system is basically whether the "residents" are happy with the way the admins handle it. Because only then you'll have "residents".

And of course we had our share of people who wanted to test the rules and see how far they may go. In the end, we usually waited for the regulars to complain about their "rules testing" before we went and gave them a sound spanking, that way we didn't even have to react to the whining about being "unfairly" treated for something "minor": They got their response from the regulars.

That makes it usually a lot harder to argue against. Because now they're not getting "unfairly" treated by the admins, the other board users tell them in no uncertain terms that they're not wanted. And, more important, that the users side with the admins, not the trolls, which basically disarms any attempt at staging a "revolt".

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[rtb61]

You kind of have to accept reddit for what it is, not a place to exchange interesting and challenging thoughts and ideas, just a public digital graffiti wall that pretends it has rules. So really arbitrary as to what graffiti survives, what gets painted over and what get removed, don't expect much from it and you will be rewarded with exactly that, only really for the odd chuckle.

What a public forum, accept that you can not censor it, all you can do is let the courts censor it for you. It all stays up until a court says it is illegal, and what the say is illegal is taken down. It is not the fault of the forum moderators that the court process is so, so, slow, the courts themselves are the only ones who should be liable for the delay in applying the law.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Meneth]

Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/386/

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[SharpFang]

How do you define 'racist' or 'mysogynist'? Because from what I've seen, that slope is so incredibly slippery, it pretty much covers everyone who doesn't agree with your opinions. Even if facts and commonly accepted definitions speak against you, e.g. you create an active discrimination based on race or gender. Suddenly pro-equality people are called racists or mysogynists, simply because they don't agree matriarchy is the way, that whites should be vilified and discriminated against, or that they think 'cishet scum' is a slur.

The typical exchange is:

"X"
"You -ist scum, how dare you say X?"
"Since when is X no longer acceptable?"
"-ism was never acceptable, you bigoted nazi shit!"
"But until very recently X wasn't -ism."
"La la la can't hear you nazi asshole!"

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[thegarbz]

One man's troll is another man's freedom fighter

No. One man's troll is another troll's freedom fighter.
Either that or the man who is accusing the other of trolling doesn't know the definition of trolling. Trolling is not just someone you disagree with and by definition they bring nothing of value to the discussion.

Trolls are worth banning. The tricky part is accurately defining the troll.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[mysidia]

I actually mod for a board that has very simple rules ....

Basically, no set rules, the "Mom and Pop shop" approach to policy, "Behave however your boss tells you."; Whatever an admin tells you at any particular time. Some communities might have success with it, but doesn't provide newbies much guidance, And doesn't scale for large communities. Also, such simple ruleset is superfluous, since it is self-evident that admins have the technical powers, once you have a large site and multiple admins happen to view the same thread, you will have confusion among users as different admins come to different opinions for similar behavior by different people or on different instances: it is more helpful to have some more detailed rules/guidelines to point newbies to.

You can still concentrate moderation actions on the real intentional trolls, and if they try to cite the rules, just point out these are community guidelines that don't override admin discretion, And at the admin's discretion the person Inciting others to a violation, may be subject to banning, even if there is no mod action on the post actually breaking the rules.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Opportunist]

It does scale pretty well. But mostly 'cause the general level of intelligence is pretty high and entry is by invitation only. That alone makes a lot of moderation redundant because someone of the crowd knows you well enough to vouch for you, and you usually do not want to piss that person at the very least off.

I'm currently trying hard to remember an occasion where we actually banned someone. Over the years we have asked a few individuals to maybe abstain because it doesn't look like they would be welcome, or maybe they could adjust their behaviour to be more socially acceptable. Some changed, some left, but I really can't remember a time when we had to actually terminate the access for someone.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[mysidia]

It does scale pretty well. But mostly 'cause the general level of intelligence is pretty high and entry is by invitation only.

Um.... "invite-only private walled garden" is pretty much the epitome of being a small tight niche community, where you can probably get away with 1 or 2 admins and an ad-hoc framework.

Of course there is room enough in the world for all types and sizes of venues, But that's majorly different in scope from typical communities such as most forums, Usenet, Reddit, or Slashdot which are open to the public and try to scale to as large a population as become interested in participating

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[apoc.famine]

Man, I just spent 15 minutes trying to reply to this explaining a great forum ruleset I once experienced, and all I got was "Lameness filter encountered". Apparently paragraphs with some variant of "dick", "admin", and "troll" trigger the filter, and I'm not allowed to post. Ridiculous how sad this place has gotten.

Re: A Community Without Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

Courts are not Internet scale , we need to evolve our government tech to keep up with what people do

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[david_thornley]

That approach doesn't scale. You need admins who will read every comment and apply a little thought, making reasonably consistent judgments. Without explicit rules (that can be gamed), in a sufficiently active forum the admins will start ticking people off with inconsistent and unappealable rulings, and by rejecting posts that have genuine thought behind potentially controversial points.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Actually, I do RTFA]

the admins will start ticking people off with inconsistent and unappealable rulings,

Even with explicit rules you have that issue. Look at umps in baseball or refs in football.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[fightinfilipino]

How do you define 'racist' or 'mysogynist'? Because from what I've seen, that slope is so incredibly slippery, it pretty much covers everyone who doesn't agree with your opinions. Even if facts and commonly accepted definitions speak against you, e.g. you create an active discrimination based on race or gender. Suddenly pro-equality people are called racists or mysogynists, simply because they don't agree matriarchy is the way, that whites should be vilified and discriminated against, or that they think 'cishet scum' is a slur.

The typical exchange is:

"X" "You -ist scum, how dare you say X?" "Since when is X no longer acceptable?" "-ism was never acceptable, you bigoted nazi shit!" "But until very recently X wasn't -ism." "La la la can't hear you nazi asshole!"

it's not slippery at all. the crux of the problem is that white folks don't understand what racism is and refuse to listen when it's pointed out. this isn't a disagreement, it's white people refusing to listen. you even insert the exact strawman of people "attacking" folks who are pro-equality. it is still entirely possible for someone who believes in racial equality to do racist things.

the mere fact that my first post got modded as a troll is evidence of this: the naive libertarian element on Slashdot is unwilling even to lend an ear, to be empathetic and sympathetic for once. that is the point: LISTEN. shut up and LISTEN.

maybe instead of barreling on like a bull in a china shop, stop, listen, then respond.

and very likely, as soon as you or anyone else sees this post, they will immediately respond with a load of "b-b-b-b-b-b-but #NotAllWhites!" or similar. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. pause before you respond. consider what people are saying FIRST before typing or speaking. that's literally it.

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[SharpFang]

What exactly should I listen to? The long-debunked myths still thrown around as facts inside the echo chambers? New definitions of common things? Bullshit thought up by people with no touch with life? I heard quite enough of this crap. Are you going to tell me I'm privileged because of my gender or race? Are you going to tell me I can't be discriminated against? Will you tell me that all injustices I suffer, I suffer deservedly because I'm part of the oppressive force and I deserve to suffer?

Or are you finally going to tell me something worthwhile?

Re:A Community Without Trolls

[Opportunist]

We usually don't get involved unless someone (and usually more than one person) draws our attention to a thread. It's not really necessary to get involved too often, and usually it's enough to give the parties a little bit of time to reconsider their positions when nasty things get said in the heat of an argument.

What generally helps here immensely is that the people frequenting the board usually care about their "reputation" (well, as much reputation as you can have in an anonymous online medium) and usually think twice before saying something that will remain visible to everyone for a long time that makes them look like a dick, ass or idiot.

Maybe we're also just lucky that we built the board a very, very long time ago, when the average IQ of someone using the internet was still quite a bit higher than it is today because you did need a bit of dedication to even get online, and that means that the "old ones" are a pretty bright bunch, and their opinion matters.

Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[mi]

Bad analogy, because crime (in the usual meaning of the term) is just wrong, regardless of whether there are laws/rules against it. Trolling, on contrast, may be useful, informative, and entertaining.

Re: Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[Anonymous Coward]

Crime can be useful (see Snowden and Manning) or entertaining (see any number or 'America's Dumbest Criminals').

Re: Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[Anonymous Coward]

Crime can be useful (see Snowden and Manning) or entertaining (see any number or 'America's Dumbest Criminals').

The next town over there was an example of a dumb criminal. A black woman got caught shoplifting from a local store. Not really wanting to waste time with police and courts, the store simply banned her. In this area shoplifting carries a remarkably small penalty, much less than trespassing. That's one reason the store does things this way.

Well wouldn't you know, she came back. Apparently she wanted to do some more shoplifting. This time the police were called, for trespassing. The police escorted her out and were about to handcuff her for arrest. Apparently something like this went through her mind: "what can I possibly do to make this situation much, much worse?" She decided to resist arrest and kicked the cop. Turns out, cops don't appreciate this. Now she added a charge for resisting arrest and a charge for assaulting a law enforcement officer to the pile. The whole thing was a big scene and made the local news.

As the cop was a white man, he probably didn't want a hot-potato landing in his lap. So he took the kicking and simply pinned her to the ground until he could cuff her. I admire his professionalism really. It wasn't the brutality the media would have you expect. Although, I imagine if another white man had done the same thing, he'd likely be beaten/pepper sprayed/tazed/who knows what.

Re: Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[HornWumpus]

You need the cops to 'trespass warn' someone. They should have had her charged for shoplifting (they eventually add up) AND 'trespassed'.

Just trespass warning her, leaves them vulnerable to charges of racism, which I'll grant carries a lot less weight than it did 20 years ago.

Re: Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[Anonymous Coward]

You need the cops to 'trespass warn' someone. They should have had her charged for shoplifting (they eventually add up) AND 'trespassed'.

You see this mentality in businesses a lot and I really believe it's a mistake. It doesn't take human nature or incentives into account. The classic example is, someone brings a nuisance lawsuit against a business. If the case went to court, that person would assuredly lose. But, the business decides that settling out of court (paying them off) to make them go away is cheaper.

In the single isolated case, yes that is cheaper. However it encourages more of the same. Anyone else thinking of doing the same will know that it works. Thus I believe it worsens the problem. It's like a lot of modern business decisions: in the short term it looks good but it has a long-term cost.

Just trespass warning her, leaves them vulnerable to charges of racism, which I'll grant carries a lot less weight than it did 20 years ago.

This store does have cameras, a fact they post on the entry doors. Having footage of someone stealing from you should reduce the concerns of "racism". That the thief is dumb enough to assault a cop (which is unbelievably stupid and dangerous) also serves to reinforce the point that the problem is the individual, not the store.

The people who are often branded "SJWs" have really diluted the term "racism". When everything and everyone is constantly accused of racism, the term loses meaning. This is bad for everyone. It can turn into a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. It can cause real abuses involving real deplorable racism to be ignored. It's quickly becoming the equivalent of "I have no real argument, so I'll perform some ad-hominems now" so even its political "usefulness" has been eroded. All of this is definitely a step backwards. That's another instance of a short-term gain (I put my opponent off-balance and on the defensive without doing real argumentation!) causing a greater long-term cost.

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[headbulb]

Trolling by definition is not useful. It may be informative but there are much better ways of getting information through.

Trolling is just being an asshole to someone else online.

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[mi]

Trolling by definition is not useful.

This was a perfect opportunity for you to supply the definition...

Trolling is just being an asshole to someone else online.

Stipulating, that this is your definition, why can't such behavior be useful? For example, that someone else may be an asshole — haunting him out of your favorite forum may be useful to you and other participants...

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[Captain Splendid]

may

Never seen a single word do so much heavy lifting...

Re: Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[HornWumpus]

But it's now months later and you're calling the cops to formally trespass warn the thief, months after the video of them stealing was overwritten.

Do it all immediately. That requires the cops show up, so have them charged as well.

Re: Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's now months later and you're calling the cops to formally trespass warn the thief, months after the video of them stealing was overwritten.

Do it all immediately. That requires the cops show up, so have them charged as well.

If it were my store I might be in a position to consider your proposal. I assume that the management is attempting to minimize their costs and believes that their current approach is the best way to do that. I doubt they're open to my input. Indeed, by sending the message that thieves can attempt to steal from them and get caught once without real consequences, I believe they're just making the thieves more bold. That is undesirable, and bold thieves may not limit their activities to that one business.

If they ever consult me on the matter I'll be sure to pass that along, but I really doubt it. Anyway, that case was unusual because it escalated to the point of becoming physical... with the police. It seemed to me to fit the "dumb criminal" profile. Although it's not quite as dumb as the robber who wrote his "give me all your money" demand on a document that had his name and address on it...

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[headbulb]

Trolling is just being mean and using those reasons as excuses are very bad excuses for being mean.

I guess I am asking too much.

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[Anonymous Coward]

Verbally slapping someone around is, sometimes, the only way to get them to pay attention, dipshit.

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[Geoffrey.landis]

Trolling by definition is not useful.

This was a perfect opportunity for you to supply the definition...

Per the original Usenet definition, "trolling" was making a post with the intent of drawing a response, in the hopes of starting a flamewar. You are "trolling" for somebody to bite on your bait. Trolls, in that sense, didn't particularly believe in what they posted, only that it drew a response-- they fed off the energy of the flamewar, and didn't really care one way or the other-- they just wanted to fire.

So, yes, trolling by definition is not useful.

The definition has since rather mutated to cover anybody making obnoxious posts on the internet.

http://gizmodo.com/the-first-internet-troll-1652485292

http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/T/troll.html

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[citylivin]

" because crime (in the usual meaning of the term) is just wrong,"

It was wrong for slaves to demand to be free?

It was wrong for americans to separate from their UK masters?

It was wrong for whistle-blowers to document and report on NSA spying?

It was wrong for people to be locked up for smoking a plant?

"Crime" merely means breaking the law. Laws are written by man, and man is not perfect and gets it wrong.

Frequently.

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[Opportunist]

A crime is a crime BECAUSE there are laws/rules against it. That's basically the definition of "crime"...

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolling by definition is not useful.

Trolling is just being mean

You seem to have changed your definition a little, but let's assume that you don't know what "by definition" means and let that particular point slide. What you're saying is that:

Being mean [by definition] is not useful.

So nothing mean-spirited is useful at all? If you claim that someone's just being mean, then their activity no longer has any utility?
Your technique of argument by assertion is already a pretty good indicator that you're an idiot, but even you must see how stupid this is.

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[Anonymous Coward]

Per the original Usenet definition, "trolling" was making a post with the intent of drawing a response, in the hopes of starting a flamewar. You are "trolling" for somebody to bite on your bait. Trolls, in that sense, didn't particularly believe in what they posted, only that it drew a response-- they fed off the energy of the flamewar, and didn't really care one way or the other-- they just wanted to fire.

In other words: Doing what all news outlets do multiple times every single day for hundreds of years.

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[Anonymous Coward]

A crime is defined by law. If there's no law against a particular act, then it is not a crime. Conversely, there are laws against acts which are now considered harmless. That does not make them not crimes.

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for mansplaining that to everyone, MEAT TOSSER!!

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[Anonymous Coward]

So you believe that app news outlets don't actually believe what they publish? That they're all throughout history are equivalent to the Onion and Mad magazine in tone and intent?

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolling achieves nothing but enjoyment for the person trolling and misery or annoyance for anyone who reads it.

Try all you like to twist it or use mental gymnastics: trolling is antisocial behavior that is a net negative on communities. There are no plus sides to trolling unless you are the troll itself.

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[Anonymous Coward]

Crime is by definition an act that goes against the law. Insulting the false thai king is a crime, spitting on his image is a crime, and mocking him is a crime, but is it wrong? No, it's deserved because he's a petty little wannabe dictator.

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[thegarbz]

This was a perfect opportunity for you to supply the definition...

I wish we had some kind of book that could provide such things:

"make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them."

That's from the Oxford dictionary. It also agrees with Wikipedia. Why bother claiming someone should define something when someone defining something that is different from the commonly accepted usage of the word is WHAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM IN THE FIRSTPLACE.

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[mi]

Trolls, in that sense, didn't particularly believe in what they posted

Woa-woah! How does that follow from the definition you've declared? Why does my seeking to draw a response — or even start a flamewar — automatically mean, I do not believe in what I'm saying?

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[david_thornley]

I don't know about that. Some trolling is pretty funny to bystanders.

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[Geoffrey.landis]

Trolls, in that sense, didn't particularly believe in what they posted

Woa-woah! How does that follow from the definition you've declared? Why does my seeking to draw a response — or even start a flamewar — automatically mean, I do not believe in what I'm saying?

Well, if they believe what they're posting, they are arguing, not trolling. Possibly they are arguing in a way that is obnoxious, ignorant, stupid, deliberately provocative, and using too many ALL CAPS phrases for emphasis... but a real troll-- the old-fashioned kind-- isn't invested in any side of the argument, they only want to make the argument happen.

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not

[Anonymous Coward]

Trolling achieves nothing but enjoyment for the person trolling and misery or annoyance for anyone who reads it.

Translation: Joking around/taking the piss (trolling) achieves nothing but enjoyment for normal, sane people and misery or annoyance for delicate snowflakes like me.

We are the trolls

[Headw1nd]

As much as one could make this a free speech issue, the sad fact is that trolling is roughly the level of discourse we have sunk to. Every conversation and argument, every argument a fight. We don't want discussion, we want our blood boiling as we curse our foes, our enemies before us and our allies at our back. I'm as guilty as anyone else.

Re:We are the trolls

[parallel_prankster]

This is so true. As someone who has been on Slashdot and Reddit for the past 5-10 years (on Reddit close to when it started), it seems most discussions have become hyper-partisan and you are no longer sure if you are talking to someone who is interested in having a serious conversation about the topic or just wants to vent out his feelings often as facts! And yes, I cant say I am completely clean on this either.

Re:We are the trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as one could make this a free speech issue, the sad fact is that trolling is roughly the level of discourse we have sunk to. Every conversation and argument, every argument a fight. We don't want discussion, we want our blood boiling as we curse our foes, our enemies before us and our allies at our back. I'm as guilty as anyone else.

It will continue to be that way until people learn to say things like "you know, that's a really good point. I hadn't considered that possibility/I was unaware of that fact". The school-yard mentality believes that such statements are a showing of weakness and a lack of commitment, and only serve to invite responses like "hah see, you moron, I was right all along!" often followed by "and here is a list of everything wrong with you, personally as a human being, and perhaps also involving your parentage!"

There is an old saying along the lines of, small minds concern themselves with people and personalities, while large minds concern themselves with principles, ideas, and facts.

Now I enjoy a good fight too, so don't get me wrong. Challenging and infuriating opponents are lots of fun and can serve to sharpen your wits. Like civilized people, we fight with words so no one REALLY gets hurt (except maybe the special snowflakes in their safe spaces, but that was their own choice). The problem occurs when this is represented as anything like objective discourse, which of course it is not.

Re:We are the trolls

[TimothyHollins]

And also to hear the lamentations of their women.

Re:We are the trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up, faggot.

Re:We are the trolls

[computational super]

Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, hear the lamentation of their women...

Re:We are the trolls

[WDot]

Same. My policy on pretty much every commenting system these days (which I unfortunately don't always follow), is only respond to a response if it looks like the person appeared to read and comprehend what I said. I almost never respond, because 99% of responses I read are arguing against words I did not say. Either that or they are simply repeating a point I addressed, as if I did not address it.

It's not just that it's impossible to convince anyone of your position over the Internet. It's impossible to convince them that there might be even the slightest flaw in anything they believe, even casually. I remember arguing with someone once who was very certain (and said so) that he had logic on his side. When I pointed out some fallacies in his arguments, he said those fallacies were justified, because he was wronged (in whatever it was).

It's not even just that. People are just talking over each other, repeating talking points that they believe and trying to shut up the other person. They have no interest in trying to convince the other person. I remember being disturbed 3-4 years ago when discussion got going in many forums about whether shaming and insults were valid rhetorical discourse. After all, "we" know we're "right," and the other side refuses to come around, so why not just shame and insult them until they go away? Then, of course, consensus will be reached.

Re:We are the trolls

[mario6915]

"Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, hear the lamentation of their women..." Your comment should have a score of 5 just for that Conan the Barbarian reference.

Re:We are the trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not even just that. People are just talking over each other, repeating talking points that they believe and trying to shut up the other person. They have no interest in trying to convince the other person. I remember being disturbed 3-4 years ago when discussion got going in many forums about whether shaming and insults were valid rhetorical discourse. After all, "we" know we're "right," and the other side refuses to come around, so why not just shame and insult them until they go away? Then, of course, consensus will be reached.

I think you can blame this on the standard talk-show (radio and television) format. To give an easy example did you ever see an episode of Sean Hannity? Did you pay attention to the way he treats guests and callers? You see, if you are on *my* show that I control, and I can easily talk over you because my volume is much louder than yours, and I can mute you anytime I want but you cannot mute me, and I can demand that you answer only my leading questions*, and I can continue talking about you after I've hung up on you so now you cannot respond at all, well then guess what? I'll always be "right" and you'll never show where I'm wrong! This is why real debates have equal shares of time and a moderator.

Add in an expensive studio, slick marketing, careful selection of topics, and present it all as though it's objective discourse. Then do this again and again, daily, for years, across lots of different shows. Sooner or later the average person accepts it as normal. From there, it's only a baby step to have them doing the same thing themselves. It really doesn't help that emotion and personal attacks are easy and frequently observed in schoolyards, while attempting to be objective requires effort, discipline and dedication. So in terms of difficulty, doing it the wrong way is like going downhill, whereas a concern for objectivity is an uphill trek.

* This is an abuse of the Socratic method, which was originally a teaching tool. The teacher asks the student a series of leading questions, in which the answer to the previous question raises the next question. Reasoning through it leads to the correct conclusion. By having the student perform the reasoning themselves, instead of spoonfeeding them easy answers, they become better at reasoning.

  For settled matters of observed fact, this is a wonderful tool. It prioritizes thought process over memorization. The abuse is when it's applied to a contentious issue in which there are multiple valid positions, a pre-determined "conclusion" is the starting point, and no alternative ideas or questions are allowed. To people who don't know any better, it creates the illusion that the host is so very clever that even his opponent winds up supporting his position. That's why it's a favorite in show business.

Re:We are the trolls

[chispito]

This is so true. As someone who has been on Slashdot and Reddit for the past 5-10 years (on Reddit close to when it started), it seems most discussions have become hyper-partisan and you are no longer sure if you are talking to someone who is interested in having a serious conversation about the topic or just wants to vent out his feelings often as facts! And yes, I cant say I am completely clean on this either.

Small well defined subreddits can be really nice communities. There is no Slashdot equivalent, and the mods here seem hell bent on pushing their social and political agendas through the feed.

Re:We are the trolls

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

Conan, what is best in life?

To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of der women!

Re:We are the trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, the politicians have figured out - and we've followed their lead - that the most successful propaganda is that which is directed at one's own side.

In a public forum, when someone responds to you, they're very often not really talking to you. They're signalling to their "friends" (i.e. people who believe the same stuff as they do in this particular context) that they have mastered these particular debating points, and they're incidentally trying to reinforce those points to anyone lower down their side's hierarchy than themselves who may be wavering at this point. They have no realistic hope or expectation of convincing anyone on the other side, because Research Shows(TM) that's practically impossible anyway.

I wonder if a Stack Overflow-style moderation and editing system would make for more constructive debates? Probably not, the stakes are too high.

Re:We are the trolls

[Opportunist]

Mostly because people don't know what a discussion is about anymore. They learn "arguing" from afternoon tv talkshows where people yell at each other, repeating their phrases over and over without listening to the other side. Or from political "debates" where little gets debated, where the two parties are talking at each other but not to each other, because their rhetoric is aimed at the viewer. Because the viewer is who they wish to convince.

When was the last time you actually saw a real debate? Or have been in one? Where two parties present their diverging propositions, discuss the various aspects, actually address the objections and arguments of the other party instead of trying to hammer their own agenda home and in the end maybe even arrive at an agreement both parties can exist with?

This kind of argument died out. But this is the only kind of argument worth having. I cannot grow from simply hammering my argument into you. Yes, you will maybe regurgitate my argument if I sufficiently browbeat you into submission, but how does this validate my argument? Or even tell me of its veracity, validity or general applicability? I don't get any kind of feedback how "good" my argument or position really is. How should I improve it? How should I grow?

Likewise, if I notice that whoever I try to engage in a meaningful discussion with is only trying to hammer his agenda home, I shrug and leave. There is nothing to be gained from this. Again, I get no information how good the arguments are if my concerns, questions, objections and counter arguments get brushed aside with thought-terminating cliches.

Re:We are the trolls

[dougTheRug]

Fake. And Gay.

Re:We are the trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

> They have no interest in trying to convince the other person.

Why should someone be interested in that? There are three outcomes to such idiocy:

* You convince them to agree with you. What now?
* They double-down in their disagreement, prolonging the discussion.
* The conversation ends due to either frustration or realizing you won't get anywhere. Now you both wasted time and effort and have nothing to show for it but a temper.

Convincing someone through argumentation is just a mental version of Might Makes Right. It's a pissing contest. Why should we want to engage in that?

Re:We are the trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

It will continue to be that way until people learn to say things like "you know, that's a really good point. I hadn't considered that possibility/I was unaware of that fact". The school-yard mentality believes that such statements are a showing of weakness and a lack of commitment, and only serve to invite responses like "hah see, you moron, I was right all along!" often followed by "and here is a list of everything wrong with you, personally as a human being, and perhaps also involving your parentage!"

That's a fantastic way to express it. Most of us are taught how to be "good losers", but it seems nobody knows how to be a "good winner". The schoolyard bully mentality is far more common than it should be, and is a big part of why I don't take part in online gaming or competition in general. People are assholes.

Re:We are the trolls

[strikethree]

This is so true. As someone who has been on Slashdot and Reddit for the past 5-10 years (on Reddit close to when it started), it seems most discussions have become hyper-partisan and you are no longer sure if you are talking to someone who is interested in having a serious conversation about the topic or just wants to vent out his feelings often as facts!

Do you not see the irony in this quote? You and the GP are having a nice calm discussion about a serious topic. Perhaps you are just venting? :)

Telling

[grasshoppa]

It's telling that these SJW companies looking to offer a "safe space" on the internet can't find traction.

Re:Telling

[ShanghaiBill]

It's telling that these SJW companies looking to offer a "safe space" on the internet can't find traction.

That is not entirely true. Quora.com has a "be nice, be respectful" policy, and is doing well. They don't censor viewpoints, but they do ban bad attitudes and obnoxious behavior.

Re:Telling

[Ksevio]

Well there's also "Voat.co" which is I guess is where the "anti-social-justice" warriors go to hang out. It's also running into funding issues and might shut down.

Re:Telling

[bigman2003]

Imzy can absolutely suck it. They are a bunch of hypocritical jagoffs.

I was on Imzy for the exact purpose it was created- to be a bit nicer. So tired of the Twitter and Reddit trolls. Imzy is nice, great!

I posted for a while and had fun. Then someone with the username of 'FuckGringos' commented on a few of my posts. Okay, this is supposedly not welcome here, so I emailed the admins. "Hey, umm...the user with the name 'FuckGringos' violates your terms of service".

That was elevated to 'Jessica' (Dan's SO I believe) who said, "We do not consider that username to be offensive, because it calls out the group who holds the power and therefore is not racist."

Oh...it's one of those.

So I figured, "Okay, evidently Imzy is not the place for me, so I will delete my account. Not a big deal..." I go through the stupid-complicated account deletion process- which is basically you posting to their admin board explaining why you want to delete your account. It's public, but that was their process. One of the questions is basically, "Please explain in detail why you want to leave." Well, it's because FuckGringos is not considered offensive, but 'FuckXXXX' (any other group) is offensive.

That caused a shit-storm because evidently I was 'calling out another user' blah blah blah. As far as Imzy was concerned, me complaining about 'Fuck Gringos' was offensive, but the username wasn't.

Essentially Imzy was a frigging hypocritical circle-jerk of 'progressive' people against hate...unless you happen to be white. Evidently I was supposed to allow my white guilt to over-ride all of their terms of service or something and embrace the idea that I was bad and should accept the shame that comes with being white.

I've been waiting for a while to hear this news about them shutting down, and I'm happy. Because they (Thanks Jessica) were absolute liars when they told everyone, "This is a nice place."

No- it's not. It's a place where the new rules where white/CIS/men are all bad things, and everyone else is good.

Personally, I have no problem with any people based on their demographics, but I really hate the people who are full of shit and misrepresent what they do as good...when they are as bad as it gets.

Good riddance. I hope they wasted a lot of their own money. And yeah, now I'm 'not being nice' on Slashdot...because rather than make the Internet a better place, they made it worse.

Does anyone know of anything good to come out of Imzy?

Re:Telling

[AmiMoJo]

The whole story is actually a troll in this case. The implication is that the site failed because of censorship, but actually Voat, the hard core free speech Reddit rip-off isn't doing so great either.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/...

Must be fun working in marketing and trying to explain to advertisers why "watchpeopledie", "fatpeoplehate" and "pizzagate" at the top three search terms that bring people to your site.

Re:Telling

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because that isn't SJW behavior.

SJW behavior DOES censor viewpoints, even when expressed nicely and respectfully, if they go against the ideology, and does NOT censor mean and disrespectful expression if it does follow the ideology.

"I'm an SJW, therefore I am a good person" == "I'm a Christian, therefore I am a good person"

Re:Telling

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything, Imzy is inductive proof that Politically Correct and so called Social Justice is just another failure at socialism where the most able are punished to support the lowest reign of society.

Re:Telling

[Opportunist]

How do they balance that threshold? In my experience, a lot of people consider it already "bad attitude" and "obnoxious behaviour" if someone dares to have a diverging viewpoint.

Re:Telling

[sootman]

"For two hundred years, the best thing you could be was a white guy with a few bucks in the bank. I come along, PFFT! Fuck you, party's over."
 
—Richard Jeni

Re:Telling

[Opportunist]

Does anyone know of anything good to come out of Imzy?

Hopefully a lesson for VCs.

Re:Telling

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you saved a screenshot of this part:

We do not consider that username to be offensive, because it calls out the group who holds the power and therefore is not racist.

Re:Telling

[Anonymous Coward]

"That is not entirely true. Quora.com [quora.com] has a "be nice, be respectful" policy, and is doing well. They don't censor viewpoints, but they do ban bad attitudes and obnoxious behavior."

I don't think you understand what an SJW is.

Re:Telling

[ShanghaiBill]

How do they balance that threshold?

There is a link to report a post as abusive or disrespectful. Then it will be reviewed by someone else who will make a final determination. I don't know the details because I have never reported a post. I have a very high tolerance for on-line abuse.

You can also downvote a post to make it less visible. It is ok to downvote just because the post is wrong or not very informative.

In my experience, a lot of people consider it already "bad attitude" and "obnoxious behaviour" if someone dares to have a diverging viewpoint.

I have not seen that on Quora. It is not a forum for extended back-and-forth discussions like Slashdot. There is not really any good way to "reply" to another post, other than writing your own answer that will be posted independently and likely out of sequence.

Re:Telling

[Distan]

Reddit is already being killed by the spread of this "social justice" variant of political correctness. These Imzy people actually thought the solution was more social justice? That's hilarious. I hope they drained a lot of money out of the pockets of like-thinking VCs on their way down.

Re:Telling

[Opportunist]

So a meaningful discussion isn't even possible, it's more a child of its time: Everyone simply throws his opinion into the ring and nobody gives a shit what anyone else is posting.

I pass.

Re:Telling

[CaptnCrud]

This sounds like FARK when it started going downhill (I was around from the start almost). It was weird because the same site that used to have a page dedicated to boobies all the sudden started banning people left and right for misogyny. I can understand maybe putting up a guy ass and abs section or something for the ladies but removing froobies felt like it was a slap in the face to what that site was about. FARK was about no holds barred, everything is on the table comments...as long as it was funny.

After that the moderation got way out of control. No bashing (or even observations) of any group seemed allowed except for white male bashing or jewish bashing...and some thinly veiled black people bashing. The place had literally become moderated by a very pro-west coast liberal mindset (the same people "hooraying!!" venezuela back in 01-02) with a distinct hint of under the table appalachian bigotry.

It became so rampant I just deleted my account.

Re:Telling

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I have no problem with any people based on their demographics,

I'm getting there.

I didn't used to. Why would I? Why would anyone? But holy shit.

Re:Telling

[goose-incarnated]

The whole story is actually a troll in this case. The implication is that the site failed because of censorship, but actually Voat, the hard core free speech Reddit rip-off isn't doing so great either.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/...

Since you are using alexa to make the point, note that voat.co is #5823 while the site that failed due to censorship is #184839. If your point is that both are doing equally poor then you point is wrong. The non-censored one is doing 2 orders of magnitude better than the SJW/safespace one.

Must be fun working in marketing and trying to explain to advertisers why "watchpeopledie", "fatpeoplehate" and "pizzagate" at the top three search terms that bring people to your site.

Your point of view is, as I keep pointing out, not as widespread or as popular as you appear to believe it is. Most people tend towards egalitarianism and reject fascism.

Re:Telling

[AmiMoJo]

Your point of view is, as I keep pointing out, not as widespread or as popular as you appear to believe it is. Most people tend towards egalitarianism and reject fascism.

I certainly hope so. It just depends where you are talking about, and at what time... Recent election results in Europe seem to be moving to the centre again, away from the far right that grips the UK and US.

Re:Telling

[Anonymous Coward]

They got massive donations that will keep it afloat for a while.

Problem with voat is that it still has the voting system. Slashdot has one, but it's a very strict -1 to +5, and not everyone can hand out votes, and it's not possible to "downvote someone into oblivion". It is literally the only site on the internet where a voting system that isn't cancerous or hostile. Brigading is both ineffective and impossible.

Re:Telling

[sootman]

I wasn't expecting a +5 for that, but who modded it off-topic? It was in direct response to the parent -- "It's a place where the new rules where white/CIS/men are all bad things, and everyone else is good."

Fun fact: he said that either 15 years ago or 25 years ago -- I forget if it was in "Platypus Man" or "Big Steaming Pile of Me".

Re:Telling

[Ksevio]

Looks like it's expected to keep them open a few months and then they'll run into the same problem again

No-one wants nicer

[SuperKendall]

People say they want nicer, but look around - people come to the internet to argue. That is what the really want, and what real Reddit (and Slashdot and every other popular forum) delivers. You can't get rid of all dissent without creating an incredibly boring space.

Some may call that a "Safe Space" but there's nothing self about making yourself weaker by being unable to argue effectively for a cause you believe in.

Re:No-one wants nicer

[93 Escort Wagon]

People say they want nicer, but look around - people come to the internet to argue.

No they don't.

Re:No-one wants nicer

[Anonymous Coward]

People want to post something each time they visit a forum site. Trouble is they usually don't have much to say. But if you raise the bar and tell people their posts have to be nontrivial, non-trolling and worthwhile, e.g. professional knowledge or a personal anecdote that's actually relevant to the discussion, they'll go away disappointed.

Re:No-one wants nicer

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. People say they want less violence in team sports like hockey or football, but look at the spectators whenever two players drop the gloves.

The biggest flaw of human nature is that it refuses to admit its true nature. Humans clothes themselves in the cloak of civilization, but deep down inside, we are a violent vicious murderous animal. Look no further than our choices of entertainement if you need proof.

Re:No-one wants nicer

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they do.... Monty Python Argument Skit

Re:No-one wants nicer

[computational super]

Well, you're just proving him - oh.

Re:No-one wants nicer

[Anonymous Coward]

Some may call that a "Safe Space" but there's nothing [safe] about making yourself weaker by being unable to argue effectively for a cause you believe in.

I would agree with that, and would like to add that there is one thing even worse. What's worse is to attempt to argue effectively for a "cause" that came from someone's PR campaign and does not remotely represent anything you would have believed on your own. It happens all the time in politics. It also happens in business, which you can witness here in many of the stories about i.e. Apple/Google/Microsoft as the fanboys come out the woodwork to take their predictable positions.

I say, politicians need to offer objective evidence backing their proposals because most "new" laws have been tried before at some point in history, so they have a track record. I also say, companies should pay for every dime of PR they enjoy. If $CORPORATION really wants me to sing their praises, they need to make me a generous offer. Otherwise I'm not going to consider it, with the possible exception of nonprofit orgs and small/local mom-and-pop businesses that really deliver exceptional products or services.

Re: No-one wants nicer

[Type44Q]

People say they want less violence in team sports like hockey...

Stop making shit up.

Re: No-one wants nicer

[PoopMonkey]

Well they did say people in a general sense, and not hockey fans...

Re:No-one wants nicer

[IronDragon]

People say they want nicer, but look around - people come to the internet to argue.

No they don't.

Yes, they do.

Re:No-one wants nicer

[Jason Levine]

Arguing can be done in a nice manner. You can disagree with the person's views without immediately jumping into personal attacks, foul language, and worse. All too often, people try to "argue" online not by refuting points and presenting evidence, but by shouting down the other people ("You're an idiot for believing X"), banning contrary opinions ("You don't think Y is the best thing ever? Banned!"), and even making threats like physical violence or doxxing ("John Smith disagrees with us. It'd be a shame if someone threw a rock at his house at 123 Someroad Lane.") if someone disagrees.

And, no, I'm not limiting this criticism to one side of any particular argument. There are many different people/communities that do this in an attempt to silence opposition and force their opinions on others. I will always welcome a calm and reasoned argument with someone online, but if someone "refutes" my evidence with personal attacks and the like, I ignore them.

Re:No-one wants nicer

[Pascoea]

people come to the internet to argue. That is what the really want, and what real Reddit (and Slashdot and every other popular forum) delivers.

There is a fine line between an argument, trolling, and taking things too far.. I've been around Slashdot for a while, I come here for the (sometimes) intelligent conversations where people are free to disagree with one another, do so regularly, and are generally not dickheads about it. There is nothing wrong with that, and I can look past the "frosty piss" and "appity app" trolls and such. Usually things stay pretty calm here, some name calling, some profanity, but we're mostly adults here.

Then you delve into Reddit, especially some of the "off the beaten path" areas. Holy shit. I understand the whole "free speech" blah blah blah, but some of that stuff just has no place. Again, there's a healthy argument, there's trolls, and there's things that take it way too far.

Re:No-one wants nicer

[Frosty Piss]

People say they want nicer, but look around - people come to the internet to argue.

No they don't.

Yes, they do.

Moron.

Re:No-one wants nicer

[sheph]

No they don't.

Re:No-one wants nicer

[Anonymous Coward]

People say they want nicer, but look around - people come to the internet to argue.

No they don't.

Yes, they do.

Moron.

Now that's just abuse.

You want room 12, next door.

Re:No-one wants nicer

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for providing this self-assessment.

Re:No-one wants nicer

[swillden]

No they don't.

This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction!

Re:No-one wants nicer

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that you have told us all about yourself, tell us about your understanding of humor.

Re:No-one wants nicer

[Frosty Piss]

Now that you have told us all about yourself, tell us about your understanding of humor.

"Whooooosh!"

Re:No-one wants nicer

[Anonymous Coward]

No they don't.

This isn't an argument, it's just contradiction!

No it isn't.

Re:No-one wants nicer

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole thread, complete with the ambiguity of whether anyone was actually "whoooshed" or not, is a perfect example of an internet argument

Re:No-one wants nicer

[Opportunist]

People want LESS violence in their sports? What magical feelgood land did that statistics come from? If anything, people want MORE violence in their sports.

Re:No-one wants nicer

[swillden]

This whole thread, complete with the ambiguity of whether anyone was actually "whoooshed" or not, is a perfect example of an internet argument

Actually, it's mostly an allusion/homage to a great Monty Python sketch.

Re:No-one wants nicer

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, let's see if we can have a reasoned debate about '...that stuff just has no place.'. Now, if you meant that in the 'I wish this kind of stuff wouldn't exist in our world.' kind of way then fine, no disagreement. But if you meant it literally, I'd have to disagree. It's 'place' is exactly where you had to go look for it to find it e.g. in the 'off the beaten path' areas. If people want to spew hate on a forum dedicated to hate that's fine by me I don't have to go read it.

It's when that stuff gets in to 'polite' (or even "impolite but not 'ist' level bullshit) that it becomes a problem, or could if a person let's it. There is simply no reason to debate with someone who for instance calls you a racist name any more than there is to debate someone who just calls you a without evidence just to 'tar you' with that label.

The idea that you combat 'hate speech' with 'more speech' is NOT that you actually debate or engage in meaningful dialog with people who use such speech it's that you foster real meaningful 'inclusive' and intellectual debate'. Hell I wouldn't even protest against them (the equivalent of engaging with them on line), just let them spew their hate, people aren't stupid they don't need anyone's help distinguishing 'hate' from 'debate', and if we need to know where they are because they went beyond speech we can find them.

Re:No-one wants nicer

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't an argument! you're just contradicting each other!

Re:No-one wants nicer

[IronDragon]

A nearly word-for-word homage to that particular Monty Python sketch, at that.

I think we're just getting old, and things aren't quite as fun anymore.

Why have I never heard of this?

[hackel]

It sounds like a great endeavour, honestly, but I had never heard of it until today. It's a real shame that word never got out there to people. Reddit has really turned into a huge garbage fire.

Re:Why have I never heard of this?

[Grishnakh]

I disagree about Reddit, but I completely agree about Imzy: this is the first time I've heard of it. This reminds me of all the times I've read an announcement like this about some Google service that was being shut down, and that was the first time I'd heard of it. Obviously you're not going to have a lot of users of something if people have never even heard of it.

As for Reddit, it's fine. Reddit is a HUGE site full of many different forums (subreddits), so you can't paint them all with the same brush. Some of them are really horrible (/r/pyongyang, /r/The_Donald, /r/HillaryClinton) and full of vile people, others have IMO overzealous moderators (/r/politics), but there's literally hundreds of thousands of subreddits so there should be some on there to suit whatever odd interest you may have. There's one for my car, for instance, which sometimes has an interesting posting. There's /r/EarthPorn which has really nice nature photos posted every day and where I learn about great places to visit and hike. Every subreddit is totally different, with different moderators; some totally suck, others are pretty handy. It just doesn't compare with a site like Slashdot at all.

Re:Why have I never heard of this?

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like a great endeavour, honestly, but I had never heard of it until today. It's a real shame that word never got out there to people. Reddit has really turned into a huge garbage fire.

Exactly this, I never heard of it. I'm going to check it out though and see what it was like.

Re:Why have I never heard of this?

[asdfman2000]

Reddit is a HUGE site full of many different forums (subreddits), so you can't paint them all with the same brush.
... but there's literally hundreds of thousands of subreddits so there should be some on there to suit whatever odd interest you may have.
Every subreddit is totally different, with different moderators;

You're right. The front page is especially diverse with tons of unique subreddits. For example, if you don't like Trump, here is a small selection of completely unique subreddits that frequent the front page (/r/all):

/r/EnoughTrumpSpam
/r/Impeach_Trump
/r/ImpeachTrump
/r/AntiTrumpAlliance
/r/BlueMidterm2018
/r/drumpf
/r/esist
/r/MarchForScience
/r/MarchAgainstTrump
/r/Trumpgret
/r/Trump_Watch
/r/Fuckthealtright
/r/OurPresident
/r/BannedFromThe_Donald
/r/ShitThe_DonaldSays
/r/the_duped
/r/thenewcoldwar
/r/hillaryclinton
/r/democrats

I do like how reddit became a universal forum, but over the last 18 months it's become unbearable with spam and astroturfing. I try to filter anything with "Donald" or "Trump" or "President" but they keep coming up with new subreddits to get past people's filters. I wish the admins would clamp down on this a bit.

Re:Why have I never heard of this?

[scdeimos]

Why have I never heard of this?

IMO this, right here, is why Imzy didn't survive - lack of exposure.

I can't find any story submissions on /. that refer to Imzy, only this story and the one announcing its existence 13 months ago... Fired Reddit Exec Launches Competing Site.

You could have the greatest thing ever (e.g.: solving poverty, clean power generation and world hunger) but it's never going to make a difference if nobody actually knows about it.

Re:Why have I never heard of this?

[bigman2003]

Reminds me of a video I saw about organic food at Walmart.

Some guy had an organic food company (Stony Mountain?) and he started selling through Walmart. He said that all of his colleagues were really putting him down. Telling him that Walmart was the devil, and he shouldn't do business with them.

I believe they went on to be the biggest supplier of organic food in the country.

His question for the rest of the industry was basically, "Do you want to support organic food, and do something good for the world? Or do you want to sit there on your high horse and sell organic butter to rich people in Marin? Because if you want to get organic food out to people, Walmart is a good way to do it."

He made a huge difference (depending upon your view of organics) because he thought that to make the biggest impact, you work with everyone even if you disagree with them.

Imzy was a place for people who already agreed with each other. The bubble was pretty strong, and when people 'told all their friends about Imzy', they were all just telling each other. Harvesting users from Tumblr wasn't going to make it grow, they should have reached out to people who didn't agree with them (!!!!) on every point.

But they pretty much cupped your crotch at the door, checking to make sure you fit the mold of a proper Imzurian.

Re:Why have I never heard of this?

[Grishnakh]

You don't have to look at the defaults. My page is customized for only the subreddits I care about, so I never even heard of the ones you have listed here.

Re:Why have I never heard of this?

[Alioth]

This is why I don't take the defaults or front page, and my front page is only subs I'm subscribed to. The spammers don't get past that.

what a fag

[Anonymous Coward]

trolls are fun, interludes to the relentless seriousness

Can you imagine a site where creimer had no critics?

Safest space of all: Offline

[0100010001010011]

As a long time internet vagabond I tried Imzy but just couldn't do it.

The software itself wasn't bad. I could see it gaining traction for a lot of stuff that doesn't quite fit Reddit or forum discussion structure. The 'Choose a profile for this community" as well as "Post Anonymously" functions were great. I'm glad to see that some other website tried the AnonymousCoward idea.

The problem was it was the mirror universe of the Voat community where after two "Don't do that. That language shouldn't be used here" messages from mods I decided Fuck That Shit I didn't want to go online and feel like I was walking on eggshells around people that couldn't handle 'outside'.

One particular argument was that they took issue with the word "Coward" when I brought up how Slashdot used "Anonymous Coward". They didn't like the 'connotation' that it bore and calling someone a "coward" for wanting to post anonymously was answered with some logic I didn't quite follow.

I've said it before but Slashdot's founders seemingly put some forethought into how to design a forum. It's not perfect but it works. "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.".

Non-nesting forums only work until you hit a critical mass. Trying to have any discussion on Facebook was futile, even within private groups of educated people because of the non-nesting commenting. Then they added it but only made it 1 comment deep. Once Fark comment threads hit a certain number of people commenting it fell apart. However in domain specific areas 'old school forums' still are best. You can find a niche of a niche of a niche forum out there to discuss why your Singer XTNEH2398 sewing machine has this weird issue and there's a half chance that it'll get seen by someone that knows how to fix it. There are multiple car specific forums out there that are infinitely better than Reddit or just a generic car site.

For large sites I take issue with Reddit's "everyone gets to vote", because it leads to bandwagoning. At least Slashdot's bandwagoning is limited to -1:+5. So while stuff can swing either way it's pointless to continue to pile on more moderation. The random, distributed nature of the moderation also seems to put a low pass filter on the moderation.

For those that think it's now Overrun with racists and what not I invite you to spend a week on Voat, 4Chan or Stormfront and come back to Slashdot.

Re:Safest space of all: Offline

[bigman2003]

I've been wondering about the racism on Slashdot. I've been here since 2003 (hence the username) and it has gotten pretty bad lately. On some posts about 1/2 the posts are absolute trash. I do remember when the GN(whatever the rest were) started, and and first it was at least unique, and impressive that they got so many first posts. Now though, it's sifting through garbage to find the decent stuff.

But, I do find that Slashdot feeds trolls less than most places, so that is nice.

Re:Safest space of all: Offline

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean racism such as "X ethnic group/race must burn"? If so, that sucks.

Do you mean racism as in you saw a post that didn't look very intersectional, or someone who appeared to be white disagreed with someone so they have to be racist? If so, I've got some bad news for you:

Intersectional Feminism is the weapon of the bourgeois to use to divide the proletariat.

Re:Safest space of all: Offline

[Anonymous Coward]

shut up.

Re:Safest space of all: Offline

[kuzb]

The biggest problem has been and always will be that there's no way to tell signal from noise in an automated way that makes sense. Any system will be gamed or abused to push a personal agenda. Any forum that sees to much traffic becomes unusable as it drowns in a sea of voices. Those who post sooner have a greater chance of being heard than those who post later. Good ideas get lost if they're too far to the bottom because nobody's got time for that.

Even Slashdot is not immune to this. Forums universally suck because it's hard to have a discussion involving hundreds or even thousands of people without things getting lost.

So you're telling us Internet drama sells

[bettodavis]

More than wrongthink sanitized safe spaces?

Color me surprised.

Not suprised

[Anonymous Coward]

When I first read about this, I predicted it would fail. "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all" is not how internet discussions work.

Re:Not suprised

[HornWumpus]

Ford makes good tractors...

Re:Not suprised

[computational super]

"Like Reddit, only wimpier"

Never heard of it...

[__aaclcg7560]

If you don't like my posts on Slashdot, you can always go to Imzy.

Re:Never heard of it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it imzy or lmzy? What does lmzy mean? Let Me Zuck You?

Re:Never heard of it...

[__aaclcg7560]

Let Me Zuck You?

That's Facebook.

Re:Never heard of it...

[Anonymous Coward]

That won't change your relentless mediocrity and insignificance.

Re:Never heard of it...

[Anonymous Coward]

We love our big butterball creimer who more than compensates with stubborn dedication to attendance no matter how much we discourage him.

Re:Never heard of it...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I can't say I hate him, he reminds me of a "special" kid we knew as a kid, always hanging around us. He smelled of stale urine, was dirty, had torn clothes and spoke with a stutter. He let us beat him just to hang around us.

I miss that as an adult.

Re:Never heard of it...

[Anonymous Coward]

hey everybody. i'm going to show up on your site and spam you, and i'm not leaving. if you don't like it go hang out somewhere else. also - rock hard abs. forget that picture where i have a tire of fat around my neck - that's only on my neck.

- heavy creamer

never heard of it

[Anonymous Coward]

In the nanosecond after reading the first half of the title, I thought it sounded silly but I wanted to check it out, then I finished reading the sentence and was like....oh

never heard of it

[Anonymous Coward]

Never heard of it. Maybe that's why it's shutting down?

No place?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a site that went from 0 to 400,000 visitors per month in the course of a year. And that's a failure in modern Silicon Valley.

I suppose it was 100% VC funded, hired too many people, burned through the cash, and couldn't raise another round of funding so quickly.

Re:No place?

[HornWumpus]

Visits (page views), not visitors. What % were moderators? Half?

What is this Reddit thing you go on about?

[WillAffleckUW]

Seriously, are you guys still around? Is this where all the old USE*NET trolls went?

Huh?

[xession]

I've never even heard of this site and I have been looking for a reddit alternative that isn't Voat. I've been around /. for a long-long-long time and nothing will likely ever replace its format adequately and I'm fine with that. Reddit has a much broader scope in usage and I really liked that about the site from the mid 2000s to about 2012. But its appeal to that broader scope is what truly made the site absolute trash. It wasn't even necessarily the mass-appeal that reddit finally achieved. It was the realization from marketing companies that it had reached a mass-appeal and started using the site as a new marketing platform for everything from hawking new movies and products to attempting to sway public opinion on certain topics with paid political astroturfers.

I used to spend entire days on reddit reading often insightful comments and learning things from people who do things you aren't always exposed to. It was a wonderful platform for that. Once they sold out, I can't even stand to be on the site more than an hour before I'm offensively bored.

As for imzy, the front page isn't very welcoming. If I didn't know what I had just stumbled onto, I might just move on to another website. Seriously guys, I can't even tell what the hell the site is supposed to be from the front page. Theres a scrolling ticker that keep iterating new items that appeal to the concept of "community". What if I don't want to belong to a "community" and just want to read shit other people post? Too bad I guess. Forcing people to sign up to view the content is a pretty antiquated style for a forum that is supposed to sponsor discussion. Also, that video doesn't even need to exist. It says nothing about what the site is about. Hell, I might be more inclined to think I'm watching some trailer for a terribly disjointed game or something. Its no shock these folks are closing shop. They decided "community" meant walled off from the trolls and forgot that they still needed to exist outside of that wall if they wanted to grow.

If you want to beat reddit, make a website that looks exactly like reddit and use a scoring and modding system like slashdot. Then, don't sell out like a bitch.

Re:Huh?

[joemck]

You can actually browse without signing up by clicking the tiny "Sitemap" link at the bottom, but who's going to know that? Appearing to require registration to even see what communities are available inside is a terrible decision, especially for a small site nobody's heard of.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that is a just stupid ass design decision.
People need to be able to look at something and know what it is at a glance or at least have in idea that might like to interact with. CLicking sitemap to get anywhere? Garbage.

a nonjoke joke

[bobmajdakjr]

no markets for a safe space? i thought the population of tumblr would have flocked to that. or at least enough of them to make ad revenue stick.

Web forums suck still, why?

[swb]

Why do web based forums still suck so much after all these years?

Any web forum community I go to seems to suffer from the same problems.

Too many subforums that don't see any traffic, more or less forcing users into "general" forum that drowns in traffic. "Sticky" posts which are unedited glop, pages long.

Software that doesn't allow fetching more than a couple of screens worth of messages at a time, made worse by message headers that are way too big and relentless warlording by users with giant footers filled with pictures, dumb quotes, and other bullshit.

"Mega-threads" -- sometimes hundreds of pages long with almost no navigation or threading capability, and totally edited for content. A near total absence of sane threading capability. Search functions that don't return any useful information.

It makes me miss USENET.

Re:Web forums suck still, why?

[nine-times]

Yeah, sometimes I wonder why people don't generally use Usenet. I don't particularly remember why I stopped. Was it because the client software was crappy? Was it because it was overrun with trolls and pirates? Was it just because everyone else seemed to be leaving it, decimating the community?

It reminds me of Slack. Everyone I know went crazy when Slack was released, as though it was a new revolutionary product. My immediate impression was, "Oh, great. Someone made a new closed/proprietary IRC clone." Why do we keep doing this to ourselves? We keep taking decent solutions and reimplementing them in proprietary web applications that lock us into a specific vendor. How long until Google and Facebook convince everyone to give up email in favor of their proprietary messaging apps? Then how long until they get people to give up HTML in favor of a snazzy new markup language that only works in their walled gardens?

Re:Web forums suck still, why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The interesting thing is the last time Slack was tried (IMO, Google Wave) it failed to catch on and died an uninteresting death. Google took their server-to-server XMPP federation offline with Google Chat (now Hangouts) but they left server-to-client XMPP binding in place forcing users to have multiple programs or accounts to communicate across services. I'm sure some simply moved to a single service with those they talked to and Google either won or lost there.

Now Google Chat is being killed off (June 26) and it's unclear if they'll continue to support XMPP after that. If they drop it as Facebook did, it might be the end of widespread XMPP relegating it to the world of IRC.

Re:Web forums suck still, why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, sometimes I wonder why people don't generally use Usenet. I don't particularly remember why I stopped. Was it because the client software was crappy?

I believe it's because nobody these days dares to venture outside the web browser. Not even for an e-mail client. No, it must be webmail all the way.

Was it because it was overrun with trolls and pirates?

Spam seems to be a problem there. Not a bad problem but a problem nevertheless.

Was it just because everyone else seemed to be leaving it, decimating the community?

Maybe the newcomers who never learnt the netiquette. Might have something to do with Google Groups and its piss-poor posting. It doesn't even put line-breaks into the posts, last I checked. No way am I reading those posts if I need to use the horizontal scroll bar.

Re:Web forums suck still, why?

[swb]

The clients could be hit or miss, I seem to remember a Mac client around 2000 that was kind of perfect, even including a graphical tree view to show you where you were in a thread, but I also remember being mildly disappointed with many PC clients which seemed more oriented to harvesting binaries than actual message reading/posting. My favorite client was TRN.

I think the other thing that killed it was back-end ISP news server software. The stock UNIX code most places used was kind of a pig and a fair number of ISPs had trouble getting it to scale to volume, especially as binary groups proliferated, retention cratered and many gave up hosting servers.

It'd be interesting to see a resurrection of it, though, especially as databases have gotten better, storage faster and cheaper and a reasonable client could be done in HTML5.

Re:Web forums suck still, why?

[nine-times]

Actually, I remember now why I stopped using it: My ISP stopped providing a free server, and I didn't want to pay for it.

Voat is still afloat

[ITRambo]

If these folks want free speech and don't mind being called out in a nasty, but actually friendly, way, they should consider Voat. It's better overall, as long as you're not thin skinned.

Re:Voat is still afloat

[Anonymous Coward]

Voat is extremely negative and isn't friendly. It's sad since it had some potential.

Re:Voat is still afloat

[coolmoe2]

its a great place to troll conservative asshat's

Oh wait... yeah guess it is hard to have a place that's troll free.

Usage of "may"

[mi]

mayNever seen a single word do so much heavy lifting...

Look at any climate-related "scientific" prediction...

Re:Usage of "may"

[Captain Splendid]

Nah. You're still in the clear.

The problem

[Cro Magnon]

The good news is, there's a site with no trolls. The bad news is, it doesn't have any users either.

Re:The problem

[thegarbz]

What a peaceful place it would be.

SJW Fail.

[sethstorm]

I guess there's no real market for a left-wing echo chamber, but there's plenty of a market for for open discussion.

Slapping [Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not]

[Geoffrey.landis]

Verbally slapping someone around is, sometimes, the only way to get them to pay attention, dipshit.

No, actually, I don't believe I've ever seen that technique work. Not on the internet, and for that matter, not outside the internet. Not even once.

In popular culture, ages ago, there used to be a stereotyped scene where a guy gets slapped in the face and he straightens up and says "thanks, I needed that." (Was that a scene in a movie, or something? I don't even know where that one originated). I don't think that ever happened, either.

Re:Slapping [Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is not]

[tsqr]

In popular culture, ages ago, there used to be a stereotyped scene where a guy gets slapped in the face and he straightens up and says "thanks, I needed that." (Was that a scene in a movie, or something? I don't even know where that one originated). I don't think that ever happened, either.

It was a commercial for Mennen Skin Bracer aftershave, from the early 1970s.

Voat FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

A site without shadow bans, or circle-jerk hive minds.

I didn't even know such a place existed

[Asteconn]

Hadn't a clue it was even a thing. Would have hopped along if I was aware of it.

Imzy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Imzy was nothing more than an SJW-reddit founded by an SJW employee of the already SJW-entity known as Reddit. What happened to it is both exactly as it deserved and exactly as we expected.

Today I Learned...

[Applehu Akbar]

TIL that Reddit viewers are only in it for the flamewars.They have no interest in a kinder and gentler version.

It's no wonder it's shutting down

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't see any content without logging in. Which means it's not searchable by google so there aren't going to be many redirects to the site. It's too walled. Would be better if they made it free to browse but required signup to contribute or comment.

Software for thinking together

[Paul Fernhout]

https://www.truthmapping.com/a...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://cognexus.org/id41.htm
https://www.amazon.com/Dialogu...

Others: http://barcamp.org/w/page/4722...

An idea: "The argumentative theory of reasoning" (Humans may be adapted to find solutions to problems and approach the truth through arguing with each other in small groups)
https://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes...

The Goal of Political Debate

[Paul Fernhout]

https://web.archive.org/web/20...
"So strategy and tactics in the context of political debate is the same as it is in any forum where issues are debated. It is to win over the fact finder, whether that is the jury, public opinion or the actual voters. Everything you do, everything you write, every position you take, every tactic you use, is "on stage" and affects the person in the middle who is watching. He is who you are communicating with. Your communication with the other side is for the purpose of making a point with the audience, not with the person with whom you are arguing."

Re:Crime is wrong, trolling is too

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a lot of them do believe in what they are saying, and have an agenda to get their side to win. Even if it means to throw doubt, question facts/research, and bring up conspiracy theories. They were successful in pushing a narrative that both sides are just as bad, or that they have been discriminated against or had their free speech rights violated when they are trying to recruit more people to support them and get people to think they aren't in the small minority.

Nah, what you get is an echo chamber, like reddit.

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree.

What you get is an echo chamber like reddit, where the mods *are* the trolls.

Have a look at the worldnews subreddit. If you don't follow the herd-mind you'll get deleted and then banned by the mods.

I Left Usenet

[kackle]

I used Usenet a bunch and was tickled when Google (Groups) made it searchable. It wasn't much later that I saw my go-to spots enveloped in unmoderated spam to where it became too annoying to read and follow.

And it didn't help Usenet when websites like Ultiimate Guitar came along and freely scraped content from it.

Perhaps there is not much need for dry bars

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps there is not enough market for 100% dry and 100% chaste bars & saloons ...
On the other hand I would like to see return of the Code Duello.
That would solve some problems with trolls ...