'Troll hunting' algorithm could make web a better place(wired.co.uk)
wired.co.uk
'Troll hunting' algorithm could make web a better place
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-04/14/google-algorithm-predicts-trolls-antisocial-behaviour
6 comments
Supposing I was a troll, I would like an algorithm that correct my spelling and grammar, and at the same time gives a watered down form,non conflict form and zen way of speaking, to my colorful words. It should take care mainly of the first five or ten lines just to scape from the hunting algorithm.
If some mega corporation is stealing your properties and rights, it should phrase that as somethign like: An act not really understood by this person is being performed by a big company, and you are feeling a little sad about it.
Counterexamples: What happens when you apply that algorithm to R. Stallman, Linux Torvald, or people with strong opinions? Sometimes those supposed trolls are the person with the real information and correct views and not the blind sheep. By the way the former president of the FMI is now in a very difficult position in Spain, surely algorithms doesn't work so well to detect what they should detect.
Disclaimer: Not a native speaker. Edit: grammar. Added counterexamples.
If some mega corporation is stealing your properties and rights, it should phrase that as somethign like: An act not really understood by this person is being performed by a big company, and you are feeling a little sad about it.
Counterexamples: What happens when you apply that algorithm to R. Stallman, Linux Torvald, or people with strong opinions? Sometimes those supposed trolls are the person with the real information and correct views and not the blind sheep. By the way the former president of the FMI is now in a very difficult position in Spain, surely algorithms doesn't work so well to detect what they should detect.
Disclaimer: Not a native speaker. Edit: grammar. Added counterexamples.
My prediction would be that websites would develop private versions of their troll hunting algorithm that would include input from notifications and information sharing programs (PRISM, TAXII). This would enable services to respond to government requests with minimum overhead to respond to changes in foreign 'diplomacy operations/HUMINT'.
I read this totally expecting something very politically correct and was delighted to see someone have a neutral, technical take on this.
One of the things that I take from this article is that it appears to support the use of hellbanning as an anti troll measure. Not that hellbanning is a perfect solution - like everything else it depends on how it is implemented and managed.
There is no good way to implement hellbans, the only people affected by them are the ones not expecting to get banned.
Why do you think people expecting to get banned wouldn't be affected by them? Those that are aware of the existence of hellbanning probably won't be impeded very much, but I'm not convinced that hellbanning is widely known of. I'm sure lots of HN participants are aware of the existence of hellbans, but I think your average troll may not be. They may eventually figure it out, but if it slows them down, it has already done something good.
Hellbanning is most definitely widely known of where it is used. It maybe useful in a few individual cases, but most definitely not always. (And that's all ignoring the ethical issues)
I don't know about that, and it depends how it's implemented.
HN broadcasts the fact that it hellbans users. There's even a toggle in your profile to see the posts of the damned. HN also seems to gratuitously hellban people - if someone isn't hellbanned for being an obvious troll, sometimes they seem to be hellbanned over lightweight snark or nothing at all. HN even has its own notoriously hellbanned "HN celebrity": the creator of Temple OS. It's no secret.
Yet every day I notice hellbanned posts where the user has been hellbanned for some time now and they do not notice.
On my forum, I only hellban users so uncontroversially egregious (bots, spammers, and people who only post to pilfer value from the community) that nobody notices or would care if they did.
To "expose" the system, a user would pretty much have to create a topic like this: "Hey everyone, you don't know me because I've been trying to PM new users with links to my competing forum for half a year, but I just found out that nobody has been receiving my PMs because I've been hellbanned. Help me protest this system!"
HN broadcasts the fact that it hellbans users. There's even a toggle in your profile to see the posts of the damned. HN also seems to gratuitously hellban people - if someone isn't hellbanned for being an obvious troll, sometimes they seem to be hellbanned over lightweight snark or nothing at all. HN even has its own notoriously hellbanned "HN celebrity": the creator of Temple OS. It's no secret.
Yet every day I notice hellbanned posts where the user has been hellbanned for some time now and they do not notice.
On my forum, I only hellban users so uncontroversially egregious (bots, spammers, and people who only post to pilfer value from the community) that nobody notices or would care if they did.
To "expose" the system, a user would pretty much have to create a topic like this: "Hey everyone, you don't know me because I've been trying to PM new users with links to my competing forum for half a year, but I just found out that nobody has been receiving my PMs because I've been hellbanned. Help me protest this system!"
"including negative words and profanities."
This is why I have a problem with things like this. "negative words" might be why I disagree with the politics of the article...and poor spelling and grammar? Are we now discriminating against a certain type of person now? Do people that can't spell very well deserve to have their opinions ignored?
This seems like nothing more than a smoke-screen to silence opposing view points and opinions. The up/down vote buttons already serve this purpose quite well.
The same is already happening on Twitter. Activist groups against discrimination pass out lists of people to perma-ban based on nothing more but opposing opinions...doing the same exact thing they are supposed to be against.
This is why I have a problem with things like this. "negative words" might be why I disagree with the politics of the article...and poor spelling and grammar? Are we now discriminating against a certain type of person now? Do people that can't spell very well deserve to have their opinions ignored?
This seems like nothing more than a smoke-screen to silence opposing view points and opinions. The up/down vote buttons already serve this purpose quite well.
The same is already happening on Twitter. Activist groups against discrimination pass out lists of people to perma-ban based on nothing more but opposing opinions...doing the same exact thing they are supposed to be against.
They didn't just choose those criteria out of thin air. They compiled data and ran a logistic regression that was able to predict whether or a not a given user would be banned from a web community based on the content of their posts. And it turned out that negative words, profanity, spelling and grammar were all predictive features in determining that result.
Here's how science works: If you don't like the conclusions, you can question the methodology. You can conduct the experiment yourself to see if you can reproduce the results. You can run your own studies and see if you come up with different conclusions. But you don't get to say "Hmm, the data don't conform to my preconceived notions about how the world should work, so I reject their implications."
Everyone doesn't agree with the idea that every thought from every person should be heard at all times. Some people are just jerks. "Trolling", by definition, is about making provocative statements to incite reactions, as opposed to contributing to conversations. There are places where that kind of thing is accepted (4chan) and places where it is not (hn). Tools that help communities to encourage their preferred forms of communication are good things, and will be increasingly important in the future.
Here's how science works: If you don't like the conclusions, you can question the methodology. You can conduct the experiment yourself to see if you can reproduce the results. You can run your own studies and see if you come up with different conclusions. But you don't get to say "Hmm, the data don't conform to my preconceived notions about how the world should work, so I reject their implications."
Everyone doesn't agree with the idea that every thought from every person should be heard at all times. Some people are just jerks. "Trolling", by definition, is about making provocative statements to incite reactions, as opposed to contributing to conversations. There are places where that kind of thing is accepted (4chan) and places where it is not (hn). Tools that help communities to encourage their preferred forms of communication are good things, and will be increasingly important in the future.
Having a minority opinion is often perceived as "provocative" by people who feel threatened by that opinion, no matter how well articulated. These days the feeling of being "threatened" is at an all time high. (I say this having participated in discussions online for 30 years.)
The assumption that "trolls" are trying to "incite reactions, as opposed to contributing to conversations" is often repeated, but in practice, "troll" is a term that is often used against people whose viewpoint is minority, but who are legitimately arguing it.
Those with the majority viewpoint often find it convenient to dismiss (and attempt to discredit) those they disagree with by simply calling them troll. And it's not uncommon for forums to be operated in such a way as to actually ban people with minority viewpoints.
The assumption that "trolls" are trying to "incite reactions, as opposed to contributing to conversations" is often repeated, but in practice, "troll" is a term that is often used against people whose viewpoint is minority, but who are legitimately arguing it.
Those with the majority viewpoint often find it convenient to dismiss (and attempt to discredit) those they disagree with by simply calling them troll. And it's not uncommon for forums to be operated in such a way as to actually ban people with minority viewpoints.
> but in practice, "troll" is a term that is often used against people whose viewpoint is minority, but who are legitimately arguing it.
Of course, but the "troll" wants to have that conversation, and the rest of the community does not. That doesn't mean the conversation or opinions are unworthy or wrong, just that they are unwelcome in this context.
Good or bad doesn't matter, the "troll" is a disruptive influence that turns a comfortable place into an uncomfortable one.
Most people don't come to the Internet to have their beliefs challenged, no matter how wrong those beliefs might be.
Of course, but the "troll" wants to have that conversation, and the rest of the community does not. That doesn't mean the conversation or opinions are unworthy or wrong, just that they are unwelcome in this context.
Good or bad doesn't matter, the "troll" is a disruptive influence that turns a comfortable place into an uncomfortable one.
Most people don't come to the Internet to have their beliefs challenged, no matter how wrong those beliefs might be.
Right, but you can find correlations between being black and committing crime - compiling data and running logistic regressions be damned.
These measures they came up with are heuristic proxy measures at the very best, and noise at the worst.
The troll hunting algorithm has to face the false positive problem [1], which the paper does not address.
My very legitimate content has been censored various places (notably Facebook) because it tripped 'anti-trolling and scam algorithms' but the things I was trying to post were Snowden and Manning, and TPP leaks.
[1] http://understandinguncertainty.org/node/238
These measures they came up with are heuristic proxy measures at the very best, and noise at the worst.
The troll hunting algorithm has to face the false positive problem [1], which the paper does not address.
My very legitimate content has been censored various places (notably Facebook) because it tripped 'anti-trolling and scam algorithms' but the things I was trying to post were Snowden and Manning, and TPP leaks.
[1] http://understandinguncertainty.org/node/238
I have. Profanity is a weak indicator.
Disproportionally faster engagement over a given short time period and low variance of word choices along with repeated use of n-grams >= 4 words are all much more indicative then profanity.
Trolls are argumentative and tend to resort to trite sloganish language. They are no more rude then the average commentator (which is fairly impersonal and insincere)
It's about a general discordance with a generic community and what that looks like. There's two kinds: the salvageable and the hopeless. The hopeless is unwavering and defensive - irritable and divisive.
You can see where and when users post - them there are extreme outliers - those are usually bot spammers; the next group in, the first humans, they are the trolls
These are not hard things to compute - and profanity has nothing to do with it.
Alas,yet another thing I should have written up in LATEX and sent off to a fancy journal...
Disproportionally faster engagement over a given short time period and low variance of word choices along with repeated use of n-grams >= 4 words are all much more indicative then profanity.
Trolls are argumentative and tend to resort to trite sloganish language. They are no more rude then the average commentator (which is fairly impersonal and insincere)
It's about a general discordance with a generic community and what that looks like. There's two kinds: the salvageable and the hopeless. The hopeless is unwavering and defensive - irritable and divisive.
You can see where and when users post - them there are extreme outliers - those are usually bot spammers; the next group in, the first humans, they are the trolls
These are not hard things to compute - and profanity has nothing to do with it.
Alas,yet another thing I should have written up in LATEX and sent off to a fancy journal...
I think high predictive accuracy is not the only important consideration. For science it may be enough, but not for real world usage.
Because once you implement the classifier you affect the world. And you have to take into account what those effects are. Two properties I think are desirable: 1. It should encourage good behaviour. By this I mean that if you adapt to the get a better evaluation that means you also become a better member of the forum. This relates to not being gameable. 2. It should give everyone a chance. For example I could see how being poor could correlate with low quality posts. But shutting out all poor people means you can lose valuable perspectives, so its not an ideal solution. As long as your posts are good you should be welcome, even if your a pleb.
I light of these, consider what filtering for poor spelling actually does. What do we know that correlates with poor spelling? a) being a foreigner. b) being poor / uneducated. c) being underage. Those are the people you filter out. This goes against the 2'nd principle I mentioned of giving everyone a chance. It's a tradeoff, of course, and I could see how it's worth it sometimes.
Because once you implement the classifier you affect the world. And you have to take into account what those effects are. Two properties I think are desirable: 1. It should encourage good behaviour. By this I mean that if you adapt to the get a better evaluation that means you also become a better member of the forum. This relates to not being gameable. 2. It should give everyone a chance. For example I could see how being poor could correlate with low quality posts. But shutting out all poor people means you can lose valuable perspectives, so its not an ideal solution. As long as your posts are good you should be welcome, even if your a pleb.
I light of these, consider what filtering for poor spelling actually does. What do we know that correlates with poor spelling? a) being a foreigner. b) being poor / uneducated. c) being underage. Those are the people you filter out. This goes against the 2'nd principle I mentioned of giving everyone a chance. It's a tradeoff, of course, and I could see how it's worth it sometimes.
I think parent was getting at the classical problem of using a scientific result to justify a policy. The problem is that no statistic (not even the proof of a causal link) is enough to justify a policy. A policy is also about the question "what should be". How much do you value each of the conflicting goals - silence trolls vs hear every opinion? The problem is when people think they can answer this kind of question with logistic regression, too.
> Some people are just jerks and "trolling", by definition, is about making provocative statements to incite reactions, as opposed to contributing to conversations.
I believe the core of paulhauggis' point was closer to the idea that trolling and behaviour that leads to being banned are not the same thing. Scope in studies is as important as anything else.
I believe the core of paulhauggis' point was closer to the idea that trolling and behaviour that leads to being banned are not the same thing. Scope in studies is as important as anything else.
> Do people that can't spell very well deserve to have their opinions ignored?
Yes. Indeed they do. Good spelling is a mark of conscientiousness and attention to detail. Bad spelling is indicative of loose morals and an addiction to video games and misogyny that should be extirpated from polite society.
Note also that users of a public channel ( Twitter ) choosing to accept other peoples suggestions as to who they should ignore so that they are not subjected to the vilest forms of verbal/textual abuse that humanity has invented; is not censorship.
Relevant XKCD https://xkcd.com/1357/
Yes. Indeed they do. Good spelling is a mark of conscientiousness and attention to detail. Bad spelling is indicative of loose morals and an addiction to video games and misogyny that should be extirpated from polite society.
Note also that users of a public channel ( Twitter ) choosing to accept other peoples suggestions as to who they should ignore so that they are not subjected to the vilest forms of verbal/textual abuse that humanity has invented; is not censorship.
Relevant XKCD https://xkcd.com/1357/
I can't tell whether this is serious or a joke, I hope it's a joke since it sounds like taken right from the McCarthy era. Ah, now I understand, you're trying to be a troll, very clever ;)
The gentleman to whom I was replying made a reference to shared blocklists as censorship. Having had to support a couple of friends through the showers of verbal excrement that get thrown their way by a group that call itself "Gamergate".
I am less than sympathetic to the viewpoint that someone can demand the right to be listened to as well as the right to speak. Allow me to be explicitly and excruciatingly clear on that point. You are free to say whatever you want, to print it, to publish it on the internet, to build signs on your property, etc. without fearing arrest or detention. But; you do not have the right to demand that others spend even a fraction of a second of their time on this earth paying attention to you.
And by loose morals I mean that disgusting sense of entitlement to others time and bodily affection that seems to characterize the "Gamergate community".
I am less than sympathetic to the viewpoint that someone can demand the right to be listened to as well as the right to speak. Allow me to be explicitly and excruciatingly clear on that point. You are free to say whatever you want, to print it, to publish it on the internet, to build signs on your property, etc. without fearing arrest or detention. But; you do not have the right to demand that others spend even a fraction of a second of their time on this earth paying attention to you.
And by loose morals I mean that disgusting sense of entitlement to others time and bodily affection that seems to characterize the "Gamergate community".
You forgot to add pedophilia, racism, terrorism, and drugs to that list.
Hundreds of millions of people all over the world speak English as their second, third or fourth language. That fact alone makes them more interesting than some grammar sharia asshole.
Edit: grammar :)
Hundreds of millions of people all over the world speak English as their second, third or fourth language. That fact alone makes them more interesting than some grammar sharia asshole.
Edit: grammar :)
>Bad spelling is indicative of loose morals and an addiction to video games and misogyny that should be extirpated from polite society.
Is that a joke? How can you possibly justify that conclusion?
Is that a joke? How can you possibly justify that conclusion?
I was waiting for the /s as well.
Having spent some time on the internet I've spoken and chatted with people for whom English is a second language. Are you telling me that their deficient understanding of English indicates a lack of morality? Is the English language a religion now? Guess I didn't get the memo.
Having spent some time on the internet I've spoken and chatted with people for whom English is a second language. Are you telling me that their deficient understanding of English indicates a lack of morality? Is the English language a religion now? Guess I didn't get the memo.
related: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=18667
The author is the daughter of Czech emigrants, writing about her experience visiting the Czech Republic, with an focus on the difference between learning a new language as an adult and re-learning a language you once knew. From the link:
> There can be a striking lack of accommodation or cooperation on the part of listeners [in rural Czech areas]. Once, when traveling with my brother, I watched him flounder in Czech at a small town gas station, trying to convey which pack of cigarettes he wanted to purchase—he had forgotten the brand name, and was trying to describe the appearance of the package. Ignoring his pointing gestures, the cashier sat stone-faced through his attempts. When she finally identified what he wanted, she tossed the cigarettes on the counter, saying contemptuously, “As you can see, the package is red, not pink.” My brother apologized, “I’m sorry, my Czech is very bad.” “I can see that,” she replied without cracking the slightest smile.
Experience with second-language learners is, speaking broadly, vanishingly rare among humans. Most people never meet any language learners. The rural Czechs are going by a rule of thumb: someone speaking that badly is more likely to be severely mentally retarded than anything else. (And they're correct about that! If they started seeing a flood of foreign tourists with rudimentary Czech, they'd adjust accordingly.)
The author is the daughter of Czech emigrants, writing about her experience visiting the Czech Republic, with an focus on the difference between learning a new language as an adult and re-learning a language you once knew. From the link:
> There can be a striking lack of accommodation or cooperation on the part of listeners [in rural Czech areas]. Once, when traveling with my brother, I watched him flounder in Czech at a small town gas station, trying to convey which pack of cigarettes he wanted to purchase—he had forgotten the brand name, and was trying to describe the appearance of the package. Ignoring his pointing gestures, the cashier sat stone-faced through his attempts. When she finally identified what he wanted, she tossed the cigarettes on the counter, saying contemptuously, “As you can see, the package is red, not pink.” My brother apologized, “I’m sorry, my Czech is very bad.” “I can see that,” she replied without cracking the slightest smile.
Experience with second-language learners is, speaking broadly, vanishingly rare among humans. Most people never meet any language learners. The rural Czechs are going by a rule of thumb: someone speaking that badly is more likely to be severely mentally retarded than anything else. (And they're correct about that! If they started seeing a flood of foreign tourists with rudimentary Czech, they'd adjust accordingly.)
> accept other peoples suggestions
Are you insinuating they should accept suggestions from other nations and tribes? Or did you just omit the "'" , thus exposing yourself as a misspellist, a loosemoralist , a videogamist and misogynist? I hope the Trolly Inquisition finds you and burns your router!
Are you insinuating they should accept suggestions from other nations and tribes? Or did you just omit the "'" , thus exposing yourself as a misspellist, a loosemoralist , a videogamist and misogynist? I hope the Trolly Inquisition finds you and burns your router!
A broad brush[1] is acceptable if you're unable to use the Internet without being harassed by "contrarians".
I am someone who is not often harassed online, but I am involved with people who frequently experience harassment. I've been using Twitter block lists[2] and have noticed a great absence of hateful responses. This is not a long-term solution, but it lowers the number of times a day that my heart sinks. I accept any incidental losses.
The article suggests a finer brush using something like crowdsourcing. Perhaps harassment targets could pay to submit their profiles for monitoring, and the resultant block list could be made public for subscription by anyone on Block Together[2].
It would be nice to see networks take a stand against repeat harassers, but clearly people are tired of waiting around for that.
[1] https://github.com/freebsdgirl/ggautoblocker
[2] https://blocktogether.org/
EDIT: Without responses, I'm coming to some disappointing conclusions.
I am someone who is not often harassed online, but I am involved with people who frequently experience harassment. I've been using Twitter block lists[2] and have noticed a great absence of hateful responses. This is not a long-term solution, but it lowers the number of times a day that my heart sinks. I accept any incidental losses.
The article suggests a finer brush using something like crowdsourcing. Perhaps harassment targets could pay to submit their profiles for monitoring, and the resultant block list could be made public for subscription by anyone on Block Together[2].
It would be nice to see networks take a stand against repeat harassers, but clearly people are tired of waiting around for that.
[1] https://github.com/freebsdgirl/ggautoblocker
[2] https://blocktogether.org/
EDIT: Without responses, I'm coming to some disappointing conclusions.
Where does 'written harassment' ends and where does groupthink begin?
Should such harassment be an actual problem, there would already be such filtered alternatives to twitter and facebook. Right now i see it as an attempt to silence unfavorable opinions.
Should such harassment be an actual problem, there would already be such filtered alternatives to twitter and facebook. Right now i see it as an attempt to silence unfavorable opinions.
Anybody using lists like ggautoblocker is far past the point where groupthink began. They're not blocking "hateful" responses - they're blocking anyone who disagrees with them.
This is just part of an ongoing slide into the sort of factionalism that ends (eventually) in bloodshed.
This is just part of an ongoing slide into the sort of factionalism that ends (eventually) in bloodshed.
You are wrong. Using ggautoblocker and tools like it is people reclaiming their lives from parasites.
The only possible reason to claim that others need to pay attention to those who would spam them with threats of death rape and worse is complicity with the intended assault. It is a leech declaring that refusal to wade in the swamp is murder.
The only possible reason to claim that others need to pay attention to those who would spam them with threats of death rape and worse is complicity with the intended assault. It is a leech declaring that refusal to wade in the swamp is murder.
This is all nonsense. The number of people making threats is tiny, and they're on both sides. The reason those lists exist is because people on the anti-GG side have built very fragile bubbles to live in.
I'll ask this with the obvious risk of making a correlation: would you have the same opinion of kkkautoblocker — a tool that blocked anyone who associated with the leaders of a hate group?
Depends entirely on the contents of those peoples tweets. What if one of those leaders of a hate group was also a linux kernel developer and regularly made interesting technical tweets?
I alluded to this dilemma in my original post: "I accept any incidental losses." This choice of course only applies to the case where people use block lists themselves, not where social networks ban people.
My suggestion is that social networks ban users wherein harassment is strictly obvious, not wherein a prejudice opinion is even only implied. This is a tricky judgement call that the article tries to dissect, and unfortunately to which I clearly have little to contribute.
My suggestion is that social networks ban users wherein harassment is strictly obvious, not wherein a prejudice opinion is even only implied. This is a tricky judgement call that the article tries to dissect, and unfortunately to which I clearly have little to contribute.
Well then, my opinion on kkkautoblocker would be no different than my opinion on ggautoblocker. They're both stupid non-solutions, anyone who's actually trying to harass people will be able to circumvent them...
People should also consider that if they can't handle the vile cesspit that the internet is, using it is optional.
People should also consider that if they can't handle the vile cesspit that the internet is, using it is optional.
Yes, I would, though we both know that's a spurious comparison. For one thing, since you don't control the block list, and you don't know the people who control the list personally, you have no idea who they're blocking. Could be people who have nothing to do with the KKK.
For another... if people you don't know are being malicious to you maybe you should step back and think about your public face. People who draw a lot of trolls do so for a reason.
For another... if people you don't know are being malicious to you maybe you should step back and think about your public face. People who draw a lot of trolls do so for a reason.
Why do you draw a false analogy between a racist group and a distributed online movement that has been extremely successful at exposing corruption in games journalism?
Regardless of my stance on the issue, I tried my best to posit hypothetically and still failed to avoid this loaded question.
Could you expand on your first thought? I'm not sure I understand your intended connection between harassment and groupthink.
In the hypothetical situation that harassment is prevalent, I'm curious as to what your alternatives to Twitter/Facebook would look like. What would the requirements of joining such a community be?
In the hypothetical situation that harassment is prevalent, I'm curious as to what your alternatives to Twitter/Facebook would look like. What would the requirements of joining such a community be?
If you start censoring people, soon you will find yourself only allowing the opinions of the majority.
An alternative to twitter would be filtered, just as you suggest. It could even exclude "offending" opinions. There are plenty of easily offended (but very vocal) people who think all public channels should be like that. However we don't see any startup that is advocating censored speak catching up (I don't even know if there are any, but the social startup space is so overcrowded that there must be some).
An alternative to twitter would be filtered, just as you suggest. It could even exclude "offending" opinions. There are plenty of easily offended (but very vocal) people who think all public channels should be like that. However we don't see any startup that is advocating censored speak catching up (I don't even know if there are any, but the social startup space is so overcrowded that there must be some).
I respect your point about censorship when applied to the realm of civil disagreement. This conversation unfortunately breaks down because of our dissonance in regards to the civility and rationale of Gamergate.
You demonstrate this groupthink to an extreme degree in the complete absence of nuance of your description of a well-known anti-corruption movement.
So maybe you should reflect on the conditions that have duped you into taking such a simplistic position.
So maybe you should reflect on the conditions that have duped you into taking such a simplistic position.
Please, the harassment is real. The chans loved to harass people long before gamergate.
That said, the anti-corruption movement is also real. And it is a fact the gg-blocklist does block well behaved non-harassers based on political views.
You both want good things. Why can't you just both agree on ending harassment and be anti-corruption? Those are really not incompatible positions, if you are will willing to look past the us-vs-them tribe mentality.
That said, the anti-corruption movement is also real. And it is a fact the gg-blocklist does block well behaved non-harassers based on political views.
You both want good things. Why can't you just both agree on ending harassment and be anti-corruption? Those are really not incompatible positions, if you are will willing to look past the us-vs-them tribe mentality.
You are well intentioned but politically naive. The false claims of harassment and more generally victimhood are integral part of the corruption (and detrimental to dealing with real harassment).
How do you claim Gamergate is simply "well-known" as "anti-corruption"? Its Wikipedia page[1] and related discussion and sources disagree with your sentiment, attributing this line of thinking to "some of the [Gamergate] people".
If you want to distance yourself from the documented invasion into the lives and the distinct harassment of women in the industry, my humble suggestion is to pick a new angle from which to fight. How about Doritogate?
I fear we have gotten quite off-topic.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy
If you want to distance yourself from the documented invasion into the lives and the distinct harassment of women in the industry, my humble suggestion is to pick a new angle from which to fight. How about Doritogate?
I fear we have gotten quite off-topic.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy
We are quite on topic as I'm giving a performative demonstration of just how a small minority uses censorship as a form of harassment in the service of their own struggle for power.
We saw this from the likes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ... to Anti-Gamer-Gate. In this context claims of harassment are a smokescreen that are being used to cover up the exposed corruption. They appeal to the damsel-in-distress narrative that so many men so easily fall for. It's quite an effective strategy, and some guys like John Flynt (aka Brianna Wu) make quite a good living of it seemingly. Maybe you should also try it when your software isn't good: wear girls clothes, send yourself some threatening emails and whine about harassment on TV ... worth quite a stack of paper I hear.
BTW Wikipedia is not a credible source.
We saw this from the likes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ... to Anti-Gamer-Gate. In this context claims of harassment are a smokescreen that are being used to cover up the exposed corruption. They appeal to the damsel-in-distress narrative that so many men so easily fall for. It's quite an effective strategy, and some guys like John Flynt (aka Brianna Wu) make quite a good living of it seemingly. Maybe you should also try it when your software isn't good: wear girls clothes, send yourself some threatening emails and whine about harassment on TV ... worth quite a stack of paper I hear.
BTW Wikipedia is not a credible source.
I am baffled that the FreeBSD movement would put their name on something like this. Horrifying.
I think it is clear to most that freebsdgirl is a free agent, and not representative of the operating system to which she has contributed.
Out of curiosity, what did she write in FreeBSD?
Out of even more curiosity, why does this straightforward question deserve a downvote?
Out of even more curiosity, why does this straightforward question deserve a downvote?
As far as I can tell, her main area of work was originally on the installer. It was obviously sufficiently large that they gave her commit access and a @freebsd.org email in 2009-ish.
There are slides from a talk she did on it here: https://www.bsdcan.org/2009/schedule/events/126.en.html
I think it's fair to say that whatever disagreements people might have with her, her technical credentials do check out.
There are slides from a talk she did on it here: https://www.bsdcan.org/2009/schedule/events/126.en.html
I think it's fair to say that whatever disagreements people might have with her, her technical credentials do check out.
Is our nation under that much of a threat? I know America's power is waning, but if it is waning this badly we should all get very worried.