Pages: 1 2

 

2010-12-01 01:12:20
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5862

I read this today in the NYT. It's an Op-ed by a Facebook employee who argues the best way to cut down on internet trolling would be reduce anonymity on the internet.

Though trolling can be annoying, I do find her suggestions on how to 'deal' with it to be unnecessary and her views on what constitutes trollish behavior to be simplistic.

From the article wrote:

“How much longer is the media going to milk this beyond tired story?” “These guys are frauds.” “Your idiocy is disturbing.”“We’re just trying to make the world a better place one brainwashed, ignorant idiot at a time.” These are the trollish comments, all from anonymous sources, that you could have found after reading a CNN article on the rescue of the Chilean miners.
Without seeing the context the underlined quotes were posted, I guess you can say that is trolling sure. But I don't find the highlighted to be trolling at all. It's a perfectly valid opinion, one I agree with, that a lot of people were thinking. People voicing their displeasure with the amount of coverage a story or non-story is getting is legitimate.
Back in February, Engadget, a popular technology review blog, shut down its commenting system  for a few days after it received a barrage of trollish comments on its iPad coverage.
Coverage of Apple and their products is nauseating. Many people don't care about what ever apple releases or Steve Jobs says about anything. A lot of people voicing their displeasure with a blogs fascination with Apple product isn't really trolling or trollish behavior.
The technology blog Gizmodo is trying an audition system for new commenters, under which their first few comments would be approved by a moderator or a trusted commenter to ensure quality before anybody else could see them. After a successful audition, commenters can freely post. If over time they impress other trusted commenters with their contributions, they’d be promoted to trusted commenters, too, and their comments would henceforth be featured.

Disqus, a comments platform for bloggers, has experimented with allowing users to rate one another’s comments and feed those ratings into a global reputation system called Clout. Moderators can use a commenter’s Clout score to “help separate top commenters from trolls.”
Both of those seem like great ways to create a echo chambers where dissenting views are drowned out by the hive mind.

This kind of social pressure works because, at the end of the day, most trolls wouldn’t have the gall to say to another person’s face half the things they anonymously post on the Internet.
That's a good thing, we shouldn't be striving to remove or limit people's ability to be truthful or give new ideas out of fear of real life consequences. We shouldn't throw out the good just because of a little bad. What do you think?

It's 4 AM, so my apologies if the OP seems kinda disjointed. I'll fix it later, or not.
2010-12-01 01:46:19
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6877|132 and Bush

Macbeth wrote:

Coverage of Apple and their products is nauseating. Many people don't care about what ever apple releases or Steve Jobs says about anything. A lot of people voicing their displeasure with a blogs fascination with Apple product isn't really trolling or trollish behavior.
I call bs on those people. Blogs are easily ignored. Understand that the coverage is there because people are interested. It's a very simple system of supply and demand. If someone is getting physically sick because they cant skip around an article then there is something seriously wrong with that person.

The technology blog Gizmodo is trying an audition system for new commenters, under which their first few comments would be approved by a moderator or a trusted commenter to ensure quality before anybody else could see them. After a successful audition, commenters can freely post. If over time they impress other trusted commenters with their contributions, they’d be promoted to trusted commenters, too, and their comments would henceforth be featured.
It's been around forever on other sites (like gawker). There was even talk around here about sandboxing new users. They would think that they were registered and good to go.. but actually they would be invisible to everyone else. Their comments would show up to them but not to anyone else. Once a mod read the comments they would make the user visible to everyone.

I don't think it (eliminating anonymity) is going to be effective. First of all there is a real safety risk. You're basically counting on the threat of physical confrontation to control what someone says on a computer. What else would be the reason to give up your identity? Secondly, people troll all of the time without anonymity. It happens on the phone, it happens in the grocery store, it happens in our cars. The solution is to learn how to deal with them. We know that trolls on the internet are inevitable. To eliminate them is an impossible battle. Learn to identify them and realize that they have no real control over your life. If they bother you it's because you put real weight into what they say. In summary, don't be a bunch of faggin pusses. Sticks and stones.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2010-12-01 01:56:37
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6429|what

Take away the anonymity of the internet, and you'll see anyone who disagrees with the state face persecution.

Imagine how this sort of removal of freedom would effect disidents in China, or North Korea.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2010-12-01 03:27:50
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7051|Moscow, Russia

AussieReaper wrote:

Take away the anonymity of the internet, and you'll see anyone who disagrees with the state face persecution.

Imagine how this sort of removal of freedom would effect disidents in China, or North Korea.
and we all so care about "disidents" in china and north korea.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-12-01 03:53:08
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6382|eXtreme to the maX
People who choose to make their comments anonymously have much less credibility, so its not much to worry about.
Fuck Israel
2010-12-01 04:10:31
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6687|'Murka

It's relative anonymity, Dilbert. Your real name isn't Dilbert_X. Mine isn't FEOS.

Kmar and Aussie hit the nail on the head.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-12-01 04:15:29
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6992
Bull fucking shit. I go to this expat forum in Taiwan

http://forumosa.com/taiwan/index.php

My dad and I still troll (Satellite TV, Satellite TV Jr) and we know people on the forum IRL.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-12-01 04:19:45
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6382|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

It's relative anonymity, Dilbert. Your real name isn't Dilbert_X. Mine isn't FEOS.

Kmar and Aussie hit the nail on the head.
I don't mean removing anonymity wouldn't be an issue, it would be.
I mean bloggers who are anonymous, if people don't put their name behind something then they don't have so much credibility.
Fuck Israel
2010-12-01 05:38:34
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5634|London, England

FEOS wrote:

It's relative anonymity, Dilbert. Your real name isn't Dilbert_X. Mine isn't FEOS.

Kmar and Aussie hit the nail on the head.
My name is Jason Schubert, do my comments carry real weight now?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-12-01 06:02:59
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6681|North Carolina

Shahter wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Take away the anonymity of the internet, and you'll see anyone who disagrees with the state face persecution.

Imagine how this sort of removal of freedom would effect disidents in China, or North Korea.
and we all so care about "disidents" in china and north korea.
Your point being?
2010-12-01 06:19:59
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7051|Moscow, Russia

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Take away the anonymity of the internet, and you'll see anyone who disagrees with the state face persecution.

Imagine how this sort of removal of freedom would effect disidents in China, or North Korea.
and we all so care about "disidents" in china and north korea.
Your point being?
i don't give a fuck about so called "disidents", and neither does AR.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-12-01 06:27:46
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6681|North Carolina

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:


and we all so care about "disidents" in china and north korea.
Your point being?
i don't give a fuck about so called "disidents", and neither does AR.
Why not?  I care to the extent that we should condemn and sometimes sanction countries that suppress political freedoms.
2010-12-01 06:34:06
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7051|Moscow, Russia

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Your point being?
i don't give a fuck about so called "disidents", and neither does AR.
Why not?  I care to the extent that we should condemn and sometimes sanction countries that suppress political freedoms.
you forgot to add "so that we - the west - can influence those countries through those "disidents" and, ultimately, install so called "democratic regimes" and make them dance to our tune" - that would have actually made sence. otherwise it's just empty words - you don't give a shit about those people just as i don't.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-12-01 06:36:14
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6681|North Carolina

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:


i don't give a fuck about so called "disidents", and neither does AR.
Why not?  I care to the extent that we should condemn and sometimes sanction countries that suppress political freedoms.
you forgot to add "so that we - the west - can influence those countries through those "disidents" and, ultimately, install so called "democratic regimes" and make them dance to our tune" - that would have actually made sence. otherwise it's just empty words - you don't give a shit about those people just as i don't.
Sure, dissidents in China are usually pro-West.

However, your argument would hold a lot more weight if we suppressed our own dissidents.  We don't.
2010-12-01 06:41:34
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7051|Moscow, Russia

Turquoise wrote:

However, your argument would hold a lot more weight if we suppressed our own dissidents.  We don't.
i dunno how to take that, dude. honestly. you are brighter than that.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-12-01 06:50:44
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6275|Vortex Ring State
shahter's just saying that the ultimate result of us supporting thost dissidents is so the government will start to cooperate with us, so it's simply a form of coercion.
2010-12-01 06:55:07
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6681|North Carolina

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

However, your argument would hold a lot more weight if we suppressed our own dissidents.  We don't.
i dunno how to take that, dude. honestly. you are brighter than that.
I'm aware that we have supported violent dissidents in some of our foreign policy.  We still do with regard to Iran, but then again, they do against us as well.

For the most part, however, we and the rest of West support the concept of free speech.  Every country has varying degrees of support for it (we're more supportive of it than parts of Europe), but in general, political freedom is something we value.  We prefer that our trading partners move in that direction as well.

It's not as much about ideology as it is about general concepts of liberty.  Yes, we should steer clear of supporting violent dissidents, and our history of aiding certain violent groups for our own gain is shameful.  Granted, I think we can agree that every major power has done some of that.

Nevertheless, this doesn't mean we should just ignore political suppressions throughout the world.  Through trade, we should pressure countries like China to improve the freedoms of their citizens.
2010-12-01 06:56:23
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6681|North Carolina

Trotskygrad wrote:

shahter's just saying that the ultimate result of us supporting thost dissidents is so the government will start to cooperate with us, so it's simply a form of coercion.
That's true to an extent, but it doesn't apply to things like supporting the freedoms of Uyghurs, for example.   There are several dissident groups throughout the world that are not necessarily pro-West that the West still supports the freedoms of.
2010-12-01 07:17:02
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7051|Moscow, Russia
@Turquoise: every country suppresses its dissidents. you would be mad not to, those fuckers would destroy you faster than pandemics and h-bombs, ussr is one obvious example. the only difference is some countrie are more blatant about how they do it.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-12-01 07:18:02
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5634|London, England

Shahter wrote:

@Turquoise: every country suppresses its dissidents. you would be mad not to, those fuckers would destroy you faster than pandemics and h-bombs, ussr is one obvious example. the only difference is some countrie are more blatant about how they do it.
We only suppress the violent ones, usually after the fact. People generally do and say whatever the fuck they want here. It's nice.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-12-01 07:19:01
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6681|North Carolina

Shahter wrote:

@Turquoise: every country suppresses its dissidents. you would be mad not to, those fuckers would destroy you faster than pandemics and h-bombs, ussr is one obvious example. the only difference is some countrie are more blatant about how they do it.
You could say we did that back in the 60s because of some of the stuff the CIA did to the Black Panthers and groups like them, but nowadays, we don't unless they are violent.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-12-01 07:19:57)

2010-12-01 07:22:19
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7051|Moscow, Russia

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

@Turquoise: every country suppresses its dissidents. you would be mad not to, those fuckers would destroy you faster than pandemics and h-bombs, ussr is one obvious example. the only difference is some countrie are more blatant about how they do it.
You could say we did that back in the 60s because of some of the stuff the CIA did to the Black Panthers and groups like them, but nowadays, we don't unless they are violent.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Shahter wrote:

@Turquoise: every country suppresses its dissidents. you would be mad not to, those fuckers would destroy you faster than pandemics and h-bombs, ussr is one obvious example. the only difference is some countrie are more blatant about how they do it.
We only suppress the violent ones, usually after the fact.
that's only the incidents you know about - and precisely because thay were the violent ones.

People generally do and say whatever the fuck they want here. It's nice.
yeah. you, for example - very nice indeed.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2010-12-01 07:25:50
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6681|North Carolina

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

@Turquoise: every country suppresses its dissidents. you would be mad not to, those fuckers would destroy you faster than pandemics and h-bombs, ussr is one obvious example. the only difference is some countrie are more blatant about how they do it.
You could say we did that back in the 60s because of some of the stuff the CIA did to the Black Panthers and groups like them, but nowadays, we don't unless they are violent.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Shahter wrote:

@Turquoise: every country suppresses its dissidents. you would be mad not to, those fuckers would destroy you faster than pandemics and h-bombs, ussr is one obvious example. the only difference is some countrie are more blatant about how they do it.
We only suppress the violent ones, usually after the fact.
that's only the incidents you know about - and precisely because thay were the violent ones.
Conspiracy theories only work to a certain point.  Beyond that, you need evidence to back up your argument.

It's reasonable to assume that every government engages in shady behavior, but to actually make the leap from assumed corruption to suppression of political dissidents is rather wide.
2010-12-01 07:43:59
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5634|London, England

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

@Turquoise: every country suppresses its dissidents. you would be mad not to, those fuckers would destroy you faster than pandemics and h-bombs, ussr is one obvious example. the only difference is some countrie are more blatant about how they do it.
You could say we did that back in the 60s because of some of the stuff the CIA did to the Black Panthers and groups like them, but nowadays, we don't unless they are violent.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Shahter wrote:

@Turquoise: every country suppresses its dissidents. you would be mad not to, those fuckers would destroy you faster than pandemics and h-bombs, ussr is one obvious example. the only difference is some countrie are more blatant about how they do it.
We only suppress the violent ones, usually after the fact.
that's only the incidents you know about - and precisely because thay were the violent ones.

People generally do and say whatever the fuck they want here. It's nice.
yeah. you, for example - very nice indeed.
Man, everything is a conspiracy with you isn't it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-12-01 08:00:26
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|5312|Massachusetts, USA
So what you people are saying is that none of you have any credibility because you all use fake names on here?
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard