Sure. Your blog is unlikely to be free for all discourse on every conceivable topic at all times. Nazi discourse at the very least would likely be off topic (among other things).
I'm moreso referring to public square social media sites like Twitter or Facebook or Reddit.
I find it disappointing that so few people have faith in their fellow human beings (and Internet-using dogs). Hasn't the free speech argument since the Internet's inception been to let people speak and have listeners make up their own minds?
I get the distinct impression that most censors fear a critical mass of people will embrace ethnic cleansing if they're exposed to neo-nazi speech. And that kind of fear speaks to deep cynicism, contempt, and fear in their fellow person.
To those who point at Nazi Germany as an example, I say that Hitler's rise to power was accompanied by blackmail, routine intimidation of physical harms, and murder of critics. All of which are unacceptable and crimes in the modern era in any civilized society.
My response to Neo-Nazis would be to let them speak and box them in. Put them under enormous scrutiny and if they do anything remotely approaching intimidation tactics, blackmail, or any other crime that they be given the boot then.
I'm not sure what you're trying to express here other than generic cynicism.
Yes, people use cell phones because it's a requirement to participate in much of modern society.
A change in the legal landscape is the most reliable way of protecting our right to be left alone. We can't keep trying to develop technologies that our own governments keep fighting against as they'll just take over the infrastructure. We *need* policy/legal changes to create lasting societal change.
As for your cynicism - I suggest a different outlook: Hope springs eternal.
It does no good to demonize a political party. This is primarily a generation gap problem more than anything.
Democrats and Republicans both overwhelmingly want to keep Net Neutrality. Don't forget that. The partisan division here is needless and helps no one other than telecom lobbyists and their employers.
Aren't you an egotistical one? Mike has had lawmakers and Congressional staffers on his podcasts saying that TechDirt's writings was substantively responsible for changing some legislation on tech issues.
If you want an explanation as to why "ethics in game journalism" became the tagline - GamerGate wad originally stated by the /v/video games board of 4chan. It just happened that one of the obsessions /v/ has had for years was "ethics in video game journalism".
Even back in 2013 they were creating musicals mocking unethical video game journalism¹²³⁴.
So much of a clusterfuck happened in the first few months of GamerGate that other groups effectively took it over but never bothered to change the tagline. The endless "right wing antifeminist" news reporting attracted a bunch of right wing antifeminists and demoralized the people who primarily cared about video games.
The phrase "ethics in video game journalism" is a relic of Internet cultural history at this point rather than representing what GamerGate was about for more than a month or two.
I am not here to promote GamerGate. The years of reporting on it being "ultra right wing" became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Turns out news reporting can act as advertisement that attracts demographics to the target group - who knew?
I only mentioned it in the context of online harassment to present the perspective that efforts to fight it, when done poorly, causes far more harm than good.
The serial harassers didn't get a taste of their own medicine. The Bill Waggoner Crew and Super Extreme Shitposting Team hasn't been inconvenienced in the slightest.
No, innocent third parties got targeted because of "anti-"abuse activists charging at a poorly researched target like a raging bull.
That's not schadenfreude you're feeling. It's sadism.
You are correct that I'm referring to the events surrounding GamerGate. I am extremely bitter about what happened and the dehumanizing, one-sided nature of the news coverage.
SRK forum mod reveived death threats mailed to his house for so much as allowing discourse regarding GamerGate on his forum (ElderGod received a death threat titled "GG or family" sent to his house)¹. A friend of mine (different person) ended up homeless for 4 months as a result of two guys socially engineering her medical info out of her and then misrepresenting it to her boss². A different person attempted suicide because of casual, dehumanizing abuse from "anti-"abuse crusader who created GG Blockbot (I imagine you know who I'm referring to)³.
I literally FOIA'd the FBI on the investigations surrounding GamerGate. The doxing, SWATing, harassment, and death threats all came from third parties pretending to be GamerGate⁴.
Detailing all of this would make this post an essay and not get as much engagement as a shorter post would. Let me know if you have any questions.
And I'm saying that blind zealotry towards trying to resolve this problem has created far more problems and far more abuse than its resolved.
I agree abuse is an issue. I'm just gun shy after having been abused by activists manipulated by trolls into attacking subcultures I associate with. Not fun to see veteran forum mods quit because they had death threats mailed to their physical residence.
That's perverse logic you're using to describe speech as censorship. That could easily be twisted to be "any speech that regulars on forums don't like is hate speech and thus stopping it isn't censorship".
I get nostalgia for social groups of the past. I do. But you'll find that getting rid of speech you find distasteful won't bring those groups back. At least, not in the form you want them in.
The traditional media responses to the harassment you're describing has incited orders of magnitude more harassment in retaliation which results in retaliation to the retaliation and so on.
There's a lot of one-eyed kings being made over institutional responses to sensitive topics like rape. I plead that you don't go down the path that Vox, VICE, Bizzfeed, and other such outlets have gone down. I've seen too many innocents on the periphery get hurt badly by activists. I've seen too many literal sociopaths falsely don the mantle of "anti-abuse crusader" only to be the most heinous abusers of all.
You speak of harassing phone calls and protesters. I've had a very kind friend end up homeless as a result of "anti-"abuse activists purposely trying to get her fired.
I have unfortunately suffered through the obscene damage that unconstructive responses to Internet trolling can do. I'd be glad to see constructive responses to trolling used instead of the community-destroying fuck-ups by spearheaded by Vox, Vice, Buzzfeed, ect....
More on the constructive end - are any distinctions being drawn for hateful/abusive/trollish speech? Different persons have different motivations for their conduct and would respond differently to a given solution.
It is curious why Obama doesn't pardon him for the disclosures that had a nexus to the U.S. and not disclosures that had only benefit to foreign nations.
Seems like it's a "have your cake and eat it too" solution for Obama, no?
Re: Re:
I'm moreso referring to public square social media sites like Twitter or Facebook or Reddit.
(untitled comment)
I get the distinct impression that most censors fear a critical mass of people will embrace ethnic cleansing if they're exposed to neo-nazi speech. And that kind of fear speaks to deep cynicism, contempt, and fear in their fellow person.
To those who point at Nazi Germany as an example, I say that Hitler's rise to power was accompanied by blackmail, routine intimidation of physical harms, and murder of critics. All of which are unacceptable and crimes in the modern era in any civilized society.
My response to Neo-Nazis would be to let them speak and box them in. Put them under enormous scrutiny and if they do anything remotely approaching intimidation tactics, blackmail, or any other crime that they be given the boot then.
Re:
Yes, people use cell phones because it's a requirement to participate in much of modern society.
A change in the legal landscape is the most reliable way of protecting our right to be left alone. We can't keep trying to develop technologies that our own governments keep fighting against as they'll just take over the infrastructure. We *need* policy/legal changes to create lasting societal change.
As for your cynicism - I suggest a different outlook: Hope springs eternal.
Re: Re:
This is primarily a generation gap problem more than anything.
Democrats and Republicans both overwhelmingly want to keep Net Neutrality. Don't forget that. The partisan division here is needless and helps no one other than telecom lobbyists and their employers.
(untitled comment)
Re: Re: Re:
Re:
(untitled comment)
Wouldn't that leave it vulnerable to malicious hackers and National Security Letters?
Re: Wanted: Better financial models for journalism
That's pretty damn important in my eyes.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: oh ffs...
Even back in 2013 they were creating musicals mocking unethical video game journalism¹²³⁴.
So much of a clusterfuck happened in the first few months of GamerGate that other groups effectively took it over but never bothered to change the tagline. The endless "right wing antifeminist" news reporting attracted a bunch of right wing antifeminists and demoralized the people who primarily cared about video games.
The phrase "ethics in video game journalism" is a relic of Internet cultural history at this point rather than representing what GamerGate was about for more than a month or two.
¹ - https://youtu.be/FUyNEIsJ7Tk
² - https://youtu.be/fr7u1tWsGBk
³ - https://youtu.be/5mrm9fQLNO0
⁴ - https://youtu.be/Nt5mWCEsi-w
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: oh ffs...
I only mentioned it in the context of online harassment to present the perspective that efforts to fight it, when done poorly, causes far more harm than good.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: oh ffs...
The serial harassers didn't get a taste of their own medicine. The Bill Waggoner Crew and Super Extreme Shitposting Team hasn't been inconvenienced in the slightest.
No, innocent third parties got targeted because of "anti-"abuse activists charging at a poorly researched target like a raging bull.
That's not schadenfreude you're feeling. It's sadism.
Re: Re: Re: Re: oh ffs...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: oh ffs...
SRK forum mod reveived death threats mailed to his house for so much as allowing discourse regarding GamerGate on his forum (ElderGod received a death threat titled "GG or family" sent to his house)¹. A friend of mine (different person) ended up homeless for 4 months as a result of two guys socially engineering her medical info out of her and then misrepresenting it to her boss². A different person attempted suicide because of casual, dehumanizing abuse from "anti-"abuse crusader who created GG Blockbot (I imagine you know who I'm referring to)³.
I literally FOIA'd the FBI on the investigations surrounding GamerGate. The doxing, SWATing, harassment, and death threats all came from third parties pretending to be GamerGate⁴.
Detailing all of this would make this post an essay and not get as much engagement as a shorter post would. Let me know if you have any questions.
¹ - http://forums.shoryuken.com/discussion/comment/9945505/#Comment_9945505
² - My friend requested not to be identified as she didn't want to relive the hell she went through due to people asking her Qs about it if ID'd.
³ - https://archive.is/R4Tet
⁴ - https://archive.org/details/13397040FILE1
Re: Re: Re: Re: oh ffs...
I agree abuse is an issue. I'm just gun shy after having been abused by activists manipulated by trolls into attacking subcultures I associate with. Not fun to see veteran forum mods quit because they had death threats mailed to their physical residence.
Re: Re: oh ffs...
I get nostalgia for social groups of the past. I do. But you'll find that getting rid of speech you find distasteful won't bring those groups back. At least, not in the form you want them in.
Re: Re: oh ffs...
There's a lot of one-eyed kings being made over institutional responses to sensitive topics like rape. I plead that you don't go down the path that Vox, VICE, Bizzfeed, and other such outlets have gone down. I've seen too many innocents on the periphery get hurt badly by activists. I've seen too many literal sociopaths falsely don the mantle of "anti-abuse crusader" only to be the most heinous abusers of all.
You speak of harassing phone calls and protesters. I've had a very kind friend end up homeless as a result of "anti-"abuse activists purposely trying to get her fired.
(untitled comment)
More on the constructive end - are any distinctions being drawn for hateful/abusive/trollish speech? Different persons have different motivations for their conduct and would respond differently to a given solution.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Seems like it's a "have your cake and eat it too" solution for Obama, no?
More comments from Vaultnode >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Vaultnode.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt