I'm struggling to get past OP's central conceit here: they want to share views that are generally considered unreasonable, but then are surprised when others in turn may behave in an unreasonable way towards them. It really seems like two peas in the same pod. (Worth noting we are getting the most positive read on OP's proposals via self-disclosure, while we assume the most negative responses via the same.)
It's also worth noting that the OP has not claimed they have suffered verbal abuse, harrassment, or threats. It's as likely that if they were speaking in person the typical response would be someone disengaging from the conversation with haste. I imagine many HN readers are very familiar with how the nature of online discourse fundamentally shifts the responses available.
Yes, you are wrong. There's a huge difference between trying to shut down conversation, as you seem to imagine such a reaction to be, and simply trying to keep conversation on someone else's site from spilling over onto your own, which is the most anyone could possibly hope for out of a referrer block.
Personally, if I'd been subject to the sort of ongoing campaign of abuse Ms. Debenham describes, I doubt I'd have held up under it one fourth as well. If I'd found the fortitude to post about it in the first place, seeing the post linked on HN might well be enough to convince me it'd been a bad idea talking about it in public at all. She seems to have found a happy medium between the need to protect herself and the desire to put her experiences out there where they might be of benefit to others, and I say good on her for it.
This feels like being on some sort of Bizzaro Internet. In the past people on the Internet have told me to kill myself or have physically threatened me and nobody else in the IRC channel bat a fucking eyelid. Potshots like this on the Internet are so common it is practically table stakes.
Do I like it like this? No. Do I think it should be better? Yeah, in a better world. But no amount of blogging on my part would ever garner this level of sympathy.
I'm confused as to why HN is collectively so concerned about this person (enough to have 245 comments on a ten year old repost) when the same or worse is happening every day. Is it the names involved?
> If people routinely say things online that they wouldn't say in a public, real-life conversation, maybe we shouldn't apply the same standards to both kinds of communication.
One of the things I hate is when people say "it's ok to do xyz as the internet isn't real life". eg cyber-bullying can be just as emotionally harmful as saying such comments in real life. While I love how empowering the internet can be, people need to stop treating it like a justification for being dickheads.
> (FWIW I think people say similar things all the time in real-life conversations, but probably only in a private context. There are far fewer private conversations on the modern Internet.)*
I don't agree with that. You have e-mails, instant messengers, PMs on forums, Facebook, etc. There's even the ability to create private chat rooms on nearly all chat protocols. In fact there's more ways to start a private conversation between friends than there is to share content with strangers.
> I think the real problem is that in those rare circumstances where someone follows up on their stupid threats, everybody gets in a hissy fit that the warning signs were ignored. The warning signs should be ignored because following up on them is not compatible with a free society, not to mention it being both a slippery slope and a drain on resources better spent otherwise.
You make some interesting / good points there. Not sure if I agree with them - but I don't disagree either. It's definitely something I'll have to think deeper about.
I think there's a difference about speaking out about harassment in general and going against the recommendations of the police who should be dealing with a specific threat. I agree though, it's certainly not "bathing in the outrage" at all.
Perhaps the added attention to a cause, perhaps the added news coverage is worth going against the advice of professionals when it comes to direct threats to the safety of oneself? Or perhaps the institutions and individuals there to deal with such threats are not doing their job properly? Or perhaps the level of fear of online threats is so great that no local, personal support is enough?
I don't know the answers not being in that situation. I can imagine it being very scary though. I'd want to trust someone, anyone, at the very least. Perhaps online social networks can give that level of reassurance for some, for those who depend on them?
Nah, I'm pretty much the same online as I am in person. Having to support multiple personalities is just too much work.
Moreover, the whole "different person online" thing reminds me pretty strongly of one of the more common patterns in abusive relationships -- in that the abuser behaves very differently depending on the situation.
Never want to walk an inch down that road.
That said, online, nuance and tone don't come across well, if at all. E.g., the reader can choose how they want to "hear" a phrase like "I disagree, and strongly", and that'll color their opinions of me accordingly.
Possibly. People tend to speak more callously on the internet than in real life, but I asked a few coworkers about this, all were uncomfortable and one was visibly distressed; I guess thats what happens when someone that hasnt experienced this kind of behavior growing, then suddenly gets a full dose. Its hard to imagine winning anyone over leading with that.
Though, the strategy isnt so much about winning in that arguement, but just trying to get an ugly response, so you are probably right.
> People are assholes online. Sometimes even trolls. But in real life, they're often just respectful normal people.
I really don’t think this is the case and it really doesn’t match my personal experience. Especially under their true name, people behave as they would talking face to face.
I think this sort of thinking is far too fatalistic and basically throws people who cannot deal with abuse and hate under the bus to boot.
The platforms hate and abuse are delivered on are currently under human control. The idea we have no control over whether or not we receive hate and abuse is simply not true. The solution, moderation, isn't even new and is a core feature of all polite online spaces. HN is a good example.
I would add that, to a lesser degree, being unable to communicate with someone in person dehumanizes them.
Commenting online isn't the same as hearing their voice and standing in front of them. That makes a huge different in how some responds and stops a lot of hate and trolling.
While I agree in principal, in practice this type of post gets far, far more attention. The more controversial / edgy you can be on social networks (and yes that even includes HN) the more hits and comments you can get.
The bad behavior gets reinforced and continues. Not sure what can be done to minimize it either.
Not defending the trolls, but this kind of abuse is part and parcel of merely being online and putting anything out there. I've received hate mail and even one death threat from just commenting on HN. Lots of unhinged (but ultimately cowardly) people out there who feel empowered by distance and anonymity. I don't know a single female internet user who hasn't been on the receiving end of absolutely vile anger and hate at least once. Thick skin is a must.
I have likely posted some terrible things online on various sites that could easily get me fired or cause me trouble. Sometimes these are illustrations in debate to demonstrate a repugnant conclusion. Sometimes they have been roleplaying the opposite of my actual position, to better understand it. Sometimes I have just had bad takes.
I think all of these are natural and healthy parts of the human growth, and legitimate uses of online conversation. Not everyone else feels this way, or care about the context of speech they find objectionable.
This was a very well-written article. Though I haven't followed any of this person's journey that she's recounting and can't simply trust her retelling of what happened (based on the fact that I really don't know anything about weev or Kathy or their online presences), she hits on something important. It's shocking how numb a lot of internet culture is toward "trolling" or otherwise hateful statements.
Nobody goes around in public threatening to rape or murder strangers. This might seem naive, but honestly, why is this tolerable by so many people if the words are said on the internet rather than on the streets?
It's not pretend. These are REAL people that are being subjected to threats that at least aren't innocent and at worst are also real. People's intuition of "free speech" seems to be warped here. Should it be okay to type these things to someone? Would it be okay if you called them and said it over the phone? What if you said it to their face? Mailed it to them in a letter? Does the medium change the message?
I'm just tired of the "nut up or shut up" attitude that a lot of the internet seems to overflow with.
What about constant verbal abuse? Or - as in this particular case - the right to bombard (or drown) any useful discussion? Should that be tolerated? I don't know.
For some people this kind of online attacking and lack of freedom to communicate (through effective trolling) may be worse than physical abuse. In the end its the brain interpreting signals and outputting pain.
Keep in mind that a lot of the offense-taking you see happening publicly is done entirely on purpose. Think of it as adult/Internet equivalent of a child throwing a tantrum to see if they can manipulate their parents into getting what they want. In both cases, bowing down to the threats is not the right answer.
This is kind of what I mean. This seems like shifting goal posts to me. They had the whole harassment patrol thing on Twitter which I found sort of silly, personally, but I don't know how that would be described other than an effort of some sort. I certainly wouldn't call it an abject refusal to even try.
Like I said, I think it's a larger problem of shitty behavior on the internet in general, and I don't think anyone has a real solution at this point. I find it unfortunate that people use that behavior as an excuse to talk past each other.
- There is this weird idea, that one does not need to meet another person in real life in order to build a real, meaningful relationship.
- Internet is a great place, but it also provides venue for people, that want to get outraged and want to get involved in conflicts, that under normal circumstantions they would never even hear of.
Is there any study on the consequences of such harassment?
In real life, there's an element of safety. If someone's hurling verbal abuse at my face, I'd be worrying that they're going to get physical. The same isn't true online unless they cross over into real life and come hunt you down.
If someone writes a ranting email/comment on here about how much I suck, I'd likely read it, see if it's funny or just boring, and move on. If you're going to rant, you should at least try and make it witty and clever.
It's also worth noting that the OP has not claimed they have suffered verbal abuse, harrassment, or threats. It's as likely that if they were speaking in person the typical response would be someone disengaging from the conversation with haste. I imagine many HN readers are very familiar with how the nature of online discourse fundamentally shifts the responses available.
reply