|
falcon2424 posted:I'll bite one this: The waters are so muddy on this it's ridiculous. Is being tweeted at the same as being followed around? Is call-out culture the genesis or catalyst to the majority of this type of harassment online? Are media organizations culpable when they knowingly engage in it? Is letting those same type of media outlets hide behind a different set of laws than an average person doing the same thing the correct approach?
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:33 |
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:Gamergate? Like, I've got zero interest into derailing the thread down this line, but there are certainly examples of (at bare minimum) some people claiming affiliation with the movement orchestrating a campaign of harassment to intimidate people into silence. GG is very much an adoption of the same tactics call-out culture has been using for years. They mercilessly and continually poo poo on people who don't toe their ideological line via public forums. This isn't new or exciting, and the harassment native to that type of toxic activism has been ongoing on both sides of the political spectrum online for a long time.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:is it really necessary to point out that people are lovely to other people on the internet, or that it's real fuckin dumb to say "well they did it first/they do it too" when it comes to threatening to kill people because you disagree with their opinions about video games You should see it as noteworthy because it's becoming the genesis for a new set of bad laws people are trying to push through. Online harassment and threats is quickly becoming the equivalent of terrorism for a new generation, with all the dumb and reactionary laws to protect people from it being proposed like before. It's going to become the new altar people demand their rights be sacrificed upon due to a culture of fear and panic being stirred up by the media and political agitators. You already have prominent sites eliminating discussion altogether and writers calling for stupidly strict enforcement and the stripping of immunity from online content providers in regards to what their users say.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Oh no, not being able to leave comments on a site sounds awful, have any particularly egregious examples? Google being held liable for info its search engine returns: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-links-to.shtml Prominent left-wing journalist demanding an end to legal shielding of companies for the actions of their users: http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/29/mr-obama-tear-down-this-liability-shield/ Popehat deconstructs his dumb argument better than I can: https://popehat.com/2015/09/29/arthur-chu-would-like-to-make-lawyers-richer-and-you-quieter-and-poorer/ The UN publishing a hilariously bad Cyber-Violence report equating words on the internet with actual violence: http://time.com/4049106/un-cyber-violence-physical-violence/ Popehat again explaining what bullshit and agenda-pushing nonsense it is: https://popehat.com/2015/09/28/revisiting-the-un-broadband-commissions-cyberviolence-report/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:None of those links are about "prominent sites eliminating discussion altogether." There's an entire movement going on right now to gut commets sections and lots of sites are on board with it. Vox turned off their commets, for example.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:So, let's say I put together a posse of people to leave deliberately misleading comments designed to alter people's views of the blog or social media or whatever, such as by associating Frito-Lay with pedophilia or whatever. Should it be acceptable to take action to suppress our free speech, and should both corporations and private individuals be allowed to delete our comments or whatever? Sure they should, and there's really no reason to have comments sections other than trying to drive traffic if you think that's a good strategy. I'm saying that encouraging laws that hold sites legally responsible for the comments of their users is bad, though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Oh, you mean like featured in the breitbart.com expose The Left's War on Comment Sections? It further cements the means of communication into the hands of billion-dollar media outlets and limits the amount of pushback they receive. The entire point of the internet is to facilitate the communication of ideas between people, if you let a select few organizations lock down the traffic and the discussion, it just goes back to being similar to TV and the samey news culture that surrounded it. It's both sides of the aisle shrugging as their options are more and more limited because someone is convincing them it's screwing over someone they don't like. It's not in anyone's best interests, really.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:
I'm saying comments , not the uploading of things like child porn. You don't see how things like holding google responsible for things they link to that could be potentially defamatory is bad? How much talking do you think SA would permit if it were forced to be held legally responsible for the statements of its posters. How many times has noted forums drama queen Effectronica threatened to kill someone over politics on this site? How long would management let controversial topics continue if they had law enforcement or lawyers beating down their door every time he did it?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Do you agree with breitbart.com that it's a cabal of feminists and anti-racists that are behind this dastardly plot to not provide a space for people to call each other retards at the end of articles? I think the people cheering on their elimination are obviously interested in maintaining their opinions and views as the sole output of their respective sites, but I don't think it's limited to the left wing. Breitbart itself was known for deleting opposing opinions and hating gamers before their new tactic of embracing comments and gamers, so I'm not dim enough to believe they're doing anything but promoting their own self-interest. However, studies have been done showing that comments left either in support or critical of online articles can cause the reader to have a negative view of the article. It's a real statement on how stupid some outlets think their readership is that they must be protected from contrary opinions. It's reaching an almost religious fervor at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:ladies and gentlemen, behold: a man who thinks that the average comment left on a news site is well considered, thoughtfully crafted, and intended to spark civil discussion Some sites are worse than others, but generally comments sections are OK if you're capable of looking for substantial content. Sorting through white noise and dumb responses isn't really that difficult and really if it's worth it to people to delete comments entirely because of that inconvenience then they are probably giant babies.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:It already is natetimm. Your comparison to newspapers is dishonest because the amount of time, effort and resources required to do what you're describing is astronomical, while doing it on a site is much easier. Again, that's the entire point of the internet, to make communication cheaper and easier. Reinstalling the old system of dominant media presenting their more slanted than ever coverage unopposed isn't good for anyone.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:"Tonight on ABC it's Modern Family! But first here are hundreds of videos of people calling for the destruction of disgusting, stalk-eyed crabmonster natetimm, because to not provide them a platform is a threat to free speech. Buckle in folks cause this is going to last for hours." Man, you really have to twist that goalpost in a knot and move it down the street to take those shots, buddy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
Look, you guy aren't the first group of people aggressively cheer the loss of your rights and privileges, you just have the distinction of having more information regarding it available to you than any other generation. The argument against comments sections is the same one against free speech i.e. "Some people will use it to do things I don't like". When the argument gets to the point where you would rather silence everyone for the sake of silencing those people, maybe you're too personally involved in hating the caricature of people you disagree with. Maybe you're allowing yourself to be manipulated into being a partisan tool.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:when was the last time the sun touched your skin I live at the beach and surf, swim or hike almost every day. I will admit to sitting in a dark apartment with all the blinds drawn at the moment, but it's hot a gently caress here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:You know what natetimm, you're right. Next time I see "fcuk you you pinko bastard, I hope yuo die in a trench like all the other jwes" I'll be sure to remember not to be hateful, and definitely not to be a tool. If this is truly a problem for you in your life, I recommend chilling out because it's not really a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:sorry, i'm too busy giving/recieving orgasm exchanges with my model girlfriend to read this post Does something really voluntarily fall out of popularity when the only people who no longer like it are the thin-skinned pseudo journalists writing the articles?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I've moderated goon communities and my take away is a completely egalitarian point that just because a venue is possible does not mean it should exist. If you want a broader example Facebook for sure increases the quantifiable " free speech" in the world but that doesn't mean it either benefits nor improves society. There's a reason why it has the rep it does. I think once media companies reach a certain amount of control over the market where they run a near-monopoly and conspire with each other to maintain it, they should be subjected to the same types of laws that the government is subject to. Watching leftists tie themselves in a knot to suck corporate dick will never stop being amusing to me.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:uh yeah that's definition of voluntary. just because you're being a partisan tool being mad at a caricature doesn't suddenly get the government involved in a news organization's realization that comment sections only foster bitter weirdos He posted in the comments section of a website.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Nope. No way does somebody unironically write that last bit. You had us going OwlFancier but no way does someone look at that and go "yep no way this will be abused." When you're in the minority and out of power, the Bill of Rights is a sacred document and worthy of worship that must be obeyed. When you're in the majority and in power, it's an inconvenient speed bump to finalizing the defeat of your enemies. It's working exactly the way it's supposed to.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:so just to make this clear, you really do believe that the removal of comment sections is just an additional barrier thrown around the towering edifece of corporate speech and a way to disenfranchise the little guy from being able to participate in public life It doesn't keep me up at night, but I certainly think it's being done so the writers for those sites can present their views without disagreement. Blaming their elimination on troll or low-content posts is just a convenient excuse to eliminate any sort of discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Apparently not leftists. Not internet leftist, but still generally leftist.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:Natetimm, what do you think of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier? Or Morse v. Frederick? So, I read the summaries for both of these and I would be of the opinion that the student's first amendment rights were violated in both instances, even though the court disagrees with me. Schools are by default arms of the state, and the state shouldn't have the power to suppress speech, even if somehow the power to do so being filtered down to a school makes it "different".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Wait I thought the reason not having to publish comments was not a threat to free speech when done by newspapers because there's significant expense and effort involved. While websites don't have that expense and effort therefore they should protect free speech by publishing comments. Now, you're telling me that websites have a monopoly on the market. How can you have a monopoly on something as cheap and effortless as a website? Do you fancy yourself as Trident-man, righter of wrongs on the internet and protector of the downtrodden companies with cancelled comments sections?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:So you don't believe that the compelling interests of an institution should help dictate what speech should be allowed there? Even if it's, say, a school that has a compelling interest to prevent its students from committing criminal activities, or a website that has a compelling interest to present itself as reasonable and unsupportive of hateful speech? I think the basic human rights of individuals, including free speech, should trump the interests of institutions.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Sooo you would be 100% in favour of restricting the freedom of the press, then? How so? When does the freedom of the press come into direct conflict with the basic rights of an individual? Give me a specific example.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Is Facebook a good thing? Overall, yes. I know it's popular to hate on because everyone ends up adding some distant relative or friend from childhood and then having to deal with the fact that they are an idiot, but overall I think things like Facebook, and even Twitter, which I personally can't stand, do more good than bad.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:quoting this until i get an answer That statement was a direct response to something another person said, not a declaration of my minority status. There's no mistaking the fact that every time either the right or the left get into power, the Bill of Rights becomes an obstacle to them, and the majority/minority statement I made was in reference to being in the political majority or minority, not some identity politics bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:To use my earlier example: You would be wrong, then. Not being insulted is not a basic human right.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I would honestly like to ask what good you think either are doing because this past week I watched a sitting senator try to get people to trend something from c-span. Social media is going to reinforce whatever your personal philosophy is. If you're a pessimist or you intently focus on the things you hate more than the things you like, you're going to hate it. If you're into being pissed off and righteously angry, there are websites and agents all through social media willing to feed that reality to you. Even with being as critical of Tumblr and some of the dumb poo poo they come up with there, I don't think it makes Tumblr an objectively bad place, either. Most of those sites are completely built around you personalizing exactly what you want to see, so if you constantly hate what you're seeing, you really don't have anyone to blame but yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:Okay. Let's pretend that there's three kinds of speech out there, all dependent on your own personal moral compass: Bad Speech, Good Speech, and Neutral Speech. I refuse to operate within that paradigm because it allows for too much potential of abuse. You can't regulate good and bad because they aren't objective things, for the most part. It's almost all opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Except that websites are a huge monopoly that stamp out competing voices, right? Get it straight. Your argument isn't based on anything except "websites have an obligation to host my threats against the surface dwellers" and the justifications for that shift back and forth like the tides that spawned you. Also You are a weirdo with some kind of oceanic fetish.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:So, presumably, all laws are bunk, then? No, it's just that the justification for writing them has to go beyond "this is good because we say so" and "this is bad because we say so".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:possibly the funniest scenario is that natetimm thinks he's skewering a bunch of coward liberals with his insanely profound truth bombs You are a shining example of a bad faith poster who boils every person with an opposing viewpoint down into some sort of caricature you've taught yourself to intensely hate. Also, anyone who regularly posts in D&D accusing someone of being high on their own farts is projecting all over the motherfuckin' place.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:yeah, but you think people are scared of the shining truth of comment sections. most people regard comments as a horrible pit full of misspelled anger but you, because you are apparently a lone genius, see them for what they really are - a rising manifesto of glory akin to copeland's fanfare for the common man You are posting this in a comments section.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I laid out pretty early how hate speech laws are designed and what there purpose is, to imply that all sides belong at the table while advocating that the private table should be either chopped up or filled with unbagged dog poo poo for everyone's societal benefit is terrible at best. Can you show any objective benefit to hate speech laws to society at large other than personal feelings of self-satisfaction? Do you think anyone in those countries is actually less racist now because of them?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:You do realize that just about everything anyone does, from the steps they take to the laws they enact to the comments they make on internet comedy forums, is based upon what they subjectively believe to be good or bad or worth their time, right? Human society wouldn't exist without regulating good and bad. The question is whether or not you are using objective measures to support your morality or are just going along with what feels right or the herd mentality at the time. All kids of heinous poo poo has been done in the name of personal or societal morality, and I think appealing to the masses for the sake of popularity is contrary not only to the fundamental rights we enjoy, but also to the underpinnings of society itself.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Note the use of the word "objective", an ancient word of power that screens him from ever having to accept any examples if someone tries to engage him. Yeah, having to prove your point can be a real bitch.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Do you think the point of hate speech laws is to make people less racist, or to make it so the targets of that racism don't have to deal with it? The point of hate speech laws is to dress up authoritarian actions as being for your own good.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:What in the world could possibly qualify as an objective moral yardstick? Proof of some beneficial effect. A reduction in crime, perhaps? At this point all they're enforcing is people's hurt feelings.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:33 |
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Actually, it isn't! The point of hate speech laws is to both a) reduce the amount of racism a minority in your country has to deal with and b) demonstrate that the state itself is against racism and hateful speech. This is the party line for the useful idiots. Conrgats on buying it. You can do both of those things without violating another person's rights, it's just a lot harder and you don't get to feel as self-righteous.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:05
|
|