A sweet hack, and full marks for humor in the FAQ.[1]
Q: Is it secure?
A: Security is not binary.
Q: OK, how secure is it?
A: It seems like you just asked that question.
Q: No, the first question was if it's secure,
the second question was how secure is it.
A: Well now that wasn't even a question at all.
Tell you what, if you find an unreported security
vulnerability I'll buy you a beer.
As I mentioned, I'm not a particular follower of hers; I guess I should have mentioned I'm also not her apologist.
Sorry I can't answer your question. I don't know what she was doing in that tweet; you provided no context. It's clear you believe you have the answer, though, and that you care enough to create a throwaway account; pull up a four year old tweet; and present in a discussion that really isn't about Randi. Seems like she's important to you.
Thank you for thinking about this. It's a very worthy topic for thought. If you'd care to link the thread you mention, I'm sure others would like to help.
Thanks for the link, chuckcode. Skimmed a bit and added to the "read before bedtime" pile.
There's a lot of interestingness around anonymity vs. pseudonymity. From what I've read and experienced, it comes down to how much you value a particular identity in a particular context; from there, it's all about framing incentives around the identity that you value. Violentcranz didn't value the online persona enough that online incentives mattered; when he was outed by a journalist, he valued the real life incentives enough to stop the online behavior.
Fair, and we can disagree. I'll say that I'm not a fan of urging people to die in fires.
However, it's noteworthy that her review made several clear statements, some opinion and some fact, in her own name. She didn't resort to ad hominem attacks, nor doxxing, nor swatting. And evidently 370 of 1218 people found it useful in some way.
Also noteworthy that Stop the Goodread Bullies isn't a balanced, objective news source. Their coverage makes clear that SJW is a pejorative term that equates to bullying[1]; that they're happy to damn with innuendo rather than fact[2] and they're seemingly okay with pulling quotes out of context[3]. The only mention of Vox Day, who has participated in the same bullying review activity[4], is in the article you shared. Ergo, I'd tend to say they're not unbiased.
Still, they're not aking lewd suggestions or threatening peoples' lives, so I'm glad they're out there working to represent their opinions directly.
It's disingenuous to switch from your original context in which you, a bystander, urge listeners to believe that this is an unsolvable problem, to the context of the victim, which you aren't.
If you, the bystander, decide to take a stand rather than write this off as too hard a problem to solve, you help the victim by giving them support, and you help future victims by decreasing, however slightly, the chance that harassers will continue to believe that their behavior is tolerable.
If you, the bystander, are willing to spend time on one person who doesn't yet understand but who may be willing to think, and then to move from thought to action, your efforts gain leverage and that minuscule probability decrease becomes larger.
If you, the bystander, continue to do this, even without being a victim yourself; if you do this in places your voice can be heard; if you do this even when you gain no personal benefit, you hopefully influence the people around you to at least think deeper, and from there, to act in some way that fits with their conscience. And in doing so, you give the victims hope for a day when this isn't their norm.
It's not a clogged sink. It's also not an intractable problem.
It's easy to say that this happens all the time, urge folks to call the cops, let them deal with it, and otherwise don't make a big deal.
So here's the thing: people have been calling the cops; the cops are ill-equipped to deal with this. The inherent structure of police agencies in the U.S. is oriented around physical communities and jurisdictions. More than 5/6 of the sworn officers are below the federal level, thus not easily able to pursue investigations across state lines.[1] but it's easier to push this conveniently to being a problem for the cops than it is to think and choose to act.
You could instead:
* lobby your congressperson and senators to start a federal reporting program.
* develop a set of tools that helps narrow the source of these threats, along with a toolkit of self-serve legal forms to demand IP information so victims can submit full evidence to police
* support EFF and others who are helping fight this
* stop blaming the victim
mholt, you ask how Astrocyte's is part of Jesse's problem. Here's how:
* Astrocyte is assuming that none of this has already been done.
* Astrocyte is refusing to do some research and learn about the current state of affairs before minimizing the concerns of people actually experiencing the problem.
* Astrocyte is demanding that victims prove they've met Astrocyte's standards before those victims are supposed to raise broad-based concerns publicly.
* Astrocyte is writing this off as an isolated thing despite it clearly being more than that.
* Astrocyte is doing so publicly while implicitly urging others to do the same.
Astrocyte is choosing to push this problem away and say it's not as big, as wide, as common, or as horrific as it is. That's Astrocyte's choice. People are responsible for their own choices.
There are no social problems so large that we can't fix them once we develop the will to do so. We don't develop the will until we admit that these problems are tractable.
I'm happy it hasn't impinged on your work life, and I hope it never does. And there's still folks being hurt by a malevolent minority in and around our industry.
When does that majority of incredibly decent human beings, both men and women, start to care enough that they refuse to accept this any longer?
"Bullying remains a big problem, according to the study data. About 76% of violent crimes that occurred at school were not reported to police, which is consistent with the findings that from 2006 to 2010, crimes against youth age 12 to 17 were more likely to go unreported than crimes against persons in other age categories."
Now, here's my question for you, mholt (and others), meant in a kind but very direct tone: why should someone need to prove that reporting more of these crimes is justifiable? Why quibble with that question versus addressing the question of, "is there a wrong being done and can I help stop it?"
There is a wrong being done. You can help stop it.
"Bullying remains a big problem, according to the study data. About 76% of violent crimes that occurred at school were not reported to police, which is consistent with the findings that from 2006 to 2010, crimes against youth age 12 to 17 were more likely to go unreported than crimes against persons in other age categories."
Now, here's my question for you, mholt (and others), meant in a kind but very direct tone: why should someone need to prove that reporting more of these crimes is justifiable? Why quibble with that question versus addressing the question of, "is there a wrong being done and can I help stop it?"
There is a wrong being done. You can help stop it.
I'm not a particular follower of Randi's and still couldn't help but see the Vivek stuff going on. I wouldn't have labeled it harassment; what I saw was a loud and unrelenting public call for accountability. I don't believe she threatened, doxxed, or otherwise harassed him. Do you know differently?
What I would call harassment is that Randi was doxxed as well as swatted, seemingly by the same sort of folks involved in this situation. She seems to have decided to aggressively stand up for her rights and the rights of others.
I'm sure that makes many uncomfortable, some so much so that they create new profiles in social media to comment on it without risking their reputation. Which is fair, though you have to ask yourself why.
> You can't do anything to stop trolls online [...]
So painfully wrong. There are many things you can do, including not giving up and walking off. You just have to decide you've had enough and are willing to do hard work.
Speak out, even when it's not in your own best interest.
Support people who are targeted.
And, last but not least, don't pick pedantic points to argue while losing sight of the main issue: it absolutely stinks to be a woman in tech.
Yup. I agree with Hilary and Diego. Optimizing for the clickability of the ad is shortsighted. Yahoo is an advertising company.
Optimizing for revenue via delivering valuable clicks to your ad buyers seems more a right choice. That speaks of good placement and excellent targeting (better CTR) combined with an overall good experience (to attract/keep users in the first place).
It's about building their confidence from age 0. It's about making and reinforcing a community of respect for difference wherever you are. And it's about being sure that your kids know they're never really out there all by themselves.
Our kids go to public school, are healthily wonky in different (and wonderful) ways, and have friends who are healthily wonky in other different (and wonderful) ways. We live in a community that, among other things, had spirited discussions about bullying years ago. We live there despite a long daily commute for me because we believe that having a good environment is almost as important as being good parents.
They look to you to tell them what's good and bad. Choose carefully the lessons you give, explicit or other.
[1] http://trustiosity.com/snow/faq.html