People Turning on Trolls?

[Renegade]

Just saw this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/19/new-internet-age-trolls

A new internet age? Web users turn on 'trolls'

Two recent online 'outings' suggest that attitudes towards online anonymity may have shifted


When mourners arrived at the peace park in Maple Ridge, Vancouver, to pay tribute to Amanda Todd this week, few could have realised quite how widely the effects of the 15-year-old's death were being felt.

News of her suicide, apparently as a result of years of cyberbullying, provoked the internet vigilante group Anonymous to reveal the personal details of the man it says tormented her under an online pseudonym.

It came in the same week that an American journalist outed the real-life identity of one of the "biggest trolls on the web" as Michael Brutsch, a man accused of posting sexualised images of underage girls and graphic images of domestic violence on Reddit, the hugely popular open-source website now considered so influential it recently hosted a question and answer session with Barack Obama.

Does this represent a turning point in the history of the web, when the cloak of anonymity was torn away from internet trolls?

"This has been a wake-up call to the people who participate in these online communities to really think through what their responsibilities are," said Zeynep Tufekci, of the centre for information technology policy at Princeton University. The events surrounding the exposure of Brutsch's identity, as well as that of Todd's alleged tormentor, represent a sea change, according to Tufekci. "People are realising they cannot afford to have this 'live and let live' ethos to what is posted on their site. I feel like this is a social movement on a par with the Arab spring."

Figured a few people may be interested.

Will we see a more polite Internet going forward? Dunno.

[Tuxman]

I was a troll before the WWW gained a wide audience.

[SQUIDMAN]

Went and read the art. at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/11/amanda-todd-suicide-bullying_n_1959909.html
She needed someone to help her out, and wish somebody could have! I think her mom if she knew could have gotten police involved, I think Anonymos did the right thing turning one of the guys in, couldn't help with the kids at the school beating her up. We and I did alot of stupid things when I was young, glad the internet, and SM wasn't around then. I DON'T think this is a turning point, just a small sad story, that will be old news in a week.

[40hz]

If you make a habit of hurting and annoying people, it's only a matter of time before they start hitting back. That should come as no surprise to anyone.

As far as all this being a sea change? Maybe nothing quite that dramatic. But I think it's certainly an indication that people have become familiar enough with the web, and the technology behind it, that they now realize they're not as helpless as they once thought.

These particular stories will soon be old news.

But far from it being over, I think this is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Renegade]

Saw this:

[attachthumb=#]

Topical anyways.

[TaoPhoenix]

If you make a habit of hurting and annoying people, it's only a matter of time before they start hitting back. That should come as no surprise to anyone.

As far as all this being a sea change? Maybe nothing quite that dramatic. But I think it's certainly an indication that people have become familiar enough with the web, and the technology behind it, that they now realize they're not as helpless as they once thought.

These particular stories will soon be old news.

But far from it being over, I think this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Yeah, iceberg tips are right, and some of this assumes it's "innocent people with nothing to hide righteously turning in the trolls." We'll also get trolls "turning in" the innocents, the government and corporations turning people in to each other, and all the variants in between.

[wraith808]

Yeah, iceberg tips are right, and some of this assumes it's "innocent people with nothing to hide righteously turning in the trolls." We'll also get trolls "turning in" the innocents, the government and corporations turning people in to each other, and all the variants in between.

This. 

This is how liberties are lost.  With the best of intentions.

IMHO, of course.

[40hz]

Funny how there's always so much resentment, and bitterness, and paranoia whenever victims and ordinary people act up - but so little when the antisocial and the crazies do.

Guess it's always a little scary for some when the people commonly dismissed as "the safe ones" or "sheeple" show some fang towards their tormentors.

Oh well. Those in positions of responsibility and power onthe web have had their opportunities to be proactive and introduce some measured responses to some of the truly poisonous behaviors some people are indulging in. But far from doing so,they were so concerned with their own agendas and vision that they stood by and did little if anything.

The usual response to a serious troll complaint is the suggestion that "everybody play nice," or to to pat the dummy on the head and say "Uh-huh. Whatever."

Those hosting sites and providing internet services have spent years attempting to "educate" the public that there is little or nothing they can do about certain types of nasty people you encounter on the web.

Well guess what? It looks like the message "can do nothing" has been received loud and clear.

And the response now seems to be: Ok fine! We'll take care of it ourselves.

Don't want mob rule? Then stop being so lazy and make an effort to genuinely deal with the legitimate and unaddressed grievances which cause mobs to form in the first place.

Many in the web community - who could - chose not to. Their ongoing message has been, "We know better than you. So please, just go away and leave us alone."

Be careful what you wish for.


---------------------------

Note: liberties will be lost. But I don't blame the people screaming for redress. There will always be opportunists that seize on the what asking for additional regulations will present. I blame the people who knew better and could have kept the situation under control - but decided not to.

[wraith808]

Note: liberties will be lost. But I don't blame the people screaming for redress. There will always be opportunists that seize on the what asking for additional regulations will present. I blame the people who knew better and could have kept the situation under control - but decided not to.

But those people aren't the victimized ones.  Because the elected representatives couldn't/wouldn't get it under control, it's ok to the people victimized?

I had a bad experience with someone online trying to get into my real life.  It is for that reason that I don't readily give out my personal information.  I know that this is only the veneer of anonymity, but it is how I've gone on since that happened, as it was very traumatic when it happened.  I stand behind everything said online- other than a few communities and online games, I don't directly interact with anyone, partially as a result of this, and realizing that just because I'm who I say that I am, that doesn't mean that everyone else is.  So it's easier to keep a distance, and that lack of personal knowledge helps with that.  But I'm the same offline as online, other than the fact that I'm less thoughtful in person- my mind moves too fast for my mouth, and I switch topics at the drop of a hat because the conversation gets confused reconciling the two, making it hard to communicate.  Writing slows that down, which is why I like to write a lot.

Even if it's only a veneer of anonymity, why is it ok if someone decides that they are upset with what I wrote and goes and posts my name, address, and who knows what else anonymous posted?  Am I not entitled to share what I want to without fear that some pissed off person will go digging and it will be ok?

[TaoPhoenix]

Yeah, iceberg tips are right, and some of this assumes it's "innocent people with nothing to hide righteously turning in the trolls." We'll also get trolls "turning in" the innocents, the government and corporations turning people in to each other, and all the variants in between.

This. 

This is how liberties are lost.  With the best of intentions.

IMHO, of course.

Unfortunately, large chunks of it *claim* to be the best of intentions. The actual intent is varying grades of malice.

[TaoPhoenix]

Note: liberties will be lost. But I don't blame the people screaming for redress. There will always be opportunists that seize on the what asking for additional regulations will present. I blame the people who knew better and could have kept the situation under control - but decided not to.

But those people aren't the victimized ones.  Because the elected representatives couldn't/wouldn't get it under control, it's ok to the people victimized?

I had a bad experience with someone online trying to get into my real life.  It is for that reason that I don't readily give out my personal information.  I know that this is only the veneer of anonymity, but it is how I've gone on since that happened, as it was very traumatic when it happened.  I stand behind everything said online- other than a few communities and online games, I don't directly interact with anyone, partially as a result of this, and realizing that just because I'm who I say that I am, that doesn't mean that everyone else is.  So it's easier to keep a distance, and that lack of personal knowledge helps with that.  But I'm the same offline as online, other than the fact that I'm less thoughtful in person- my mind moves too fast for my mouth, and I switch topics at the drop of a hat because the conversation gets confused reconciling the two, making it hard to communicate.  Writing slows that down, which is why I like to write a lot.

Even if it's only a veneer of anonymity, why is it ok if someone decides that they are upset with what I wrote and goes and posts my name, address, and who knows what else anonymous posted?  Am I not entitled to share what I want to without fear that some pissed off person will go digging and it will be ok?

I *haven't yet* had a really bad experience online, so I'm writing from the veneer of anonymity from the proactive side. It basically works. If I really wanted to be funny I could probably send a nice chocolate chip cookie to Wraith808, care of Mouser, DonationCoder, blah blah. That's because Mouser is pretty good and we think he has more sense than Samsung to protect our credit card info. However notice there are no "Anonymous" accounts here, so that's the land where you get both the worst trolls and the most important whistle-blowing. I am content that there are no "FakeWraith808" accounts here. (How did Steve Lyons manage to get away with FakeSteveJobs so long anyway? Wasn't that a Libel/Slander suit worth millions?)

So "Online Handles" are a tale as old as time. And they work. I for one like my "Online Brands" and I make a point not to randomly post my worst grumpiness from them. And it turns out, basically no one online really ever needs my real info. I'm Tao, say hi, and that's all you really care about right? Names are this eerie thing where you think "Oh, now it's different, never mind the 30,000 words you posted, NOW I know you because I have a name". Really?! In some other contexts I do some social-meta experiments on that theme.

[40hz]

So it goes.

People do what people do.

Why is there this odd belief (bordering on religious conviction in some quarters) that somehow the web (which is just another human creation) can possibly be any different?

[TaoPhoenix]

So it goes.

People do what people do.

Why is there this odd belief (bordering on religious conviction in some quarters) that somehow the web (which is just another human creation) can possibly be any different?

The Web IS different. It really is.

Not counting Penny Arcade memes, as "me" I am a clumsy oaf forever bound by the times when I commit glorious social faux pas. So anything I say is taken with mixes of pity and context. Online, I have crafted a solid online suite of pen names which speak by their words and not by the spilled taco on my shirt.

I can recall less than 20 ish really negative replies I have received to 5000 posts I have made on the web.

[40hz]

But those people aren't the victimized ones.  Because the elected representatives couldn't/wouldn't get it under control, it's ok to the people victimized?

Sorry. Confused. I don't think I get what you're saying here. Could you maybe rephrase it? Thx.

[wraith808]

Note: liberties will be lost. But I don't blame the people screaming for redress. There will always be opportunists that seize on the what asking for additional regulations will present. I blame the people who knew better and could have kept the situation under control - but decided not to.

But those people aren't the victimized ones.  Because the elected representatives couldn't/wouldn't get it under control, it's ok to the people victimized?

Added emphasis. 

Government officials/others could have done something but didn't.  Innocent people get caught in crossfire.  Because government officials didn't address it, the innocents are just collateral damage?

[TaoPhoenix]

Note: liberties will be lost. But I don't blame the people screaming for redress. There will always be opportunists that seize on the what asking for additional regulations will present. I blame the people who knew better and could have kept the situation under control - but decided not to.

But those people aren't the victimized ones.  Because the elected representatives couldn't/wouldn't get it under control, it's ok to the people victimized?

Added emphasis. 

Government officials/others could have done something but didn't.  Innocent people get caught in crossfire.  Because government officials didn't address it, the innocents are just collateral damage?

I dunno, they are starting to "address it" but when they do they're leaving truck sized holes for abuse. "Let's require all the names of every handle ever" etc. That's not how I want to see it "Addressed".

[40hz]

The Web IS different. It really is.

Dunno. It's a public place like any other AFAICT.

Why do people go into public spaces? To flirt a little. To do some business. To entertain or be entertained. To get the news. To preach 'the word,' be it religious or political. To find somebody interesting to talk to.

Maybe the web gives you newer and more efficient ways to do all of that. But I don't really see anything on a fundamental level that's any different than what has come before. It's one more "tool for conviviality" as I forgot who put it.

Most of the people arguing for the Internet's "newness" and how it represented a "break with everything that came before" were people in their 20-s and 30s. Most were what would generally be considered geek types. Not exactly the best 'read' people when it came to understanding history, anthropology, philosophy, or psychology.

Interesting to note how so little of the "real promise" the web advocates claimed it represented ever came to pass. The web gave us more of "more," but not really much that was "different."

The web? Sure. Maybe it''s faster. Or cheaper. Or (so far) more consequence and responsibility free than much of what came before it. But viewed as what it is, and what it's used for, it's the 'same old same old.' The only real difference is found in it's efficiency AFAIC.

There are those who see it differently.

YMMV.

[40hz]

Note: liberties will be lost. But I don't blame the people screaming for redress. There will always be opportunists that seize on the what asking for additional regulations will present. I blame the people who knew better and could have kept the situation under control - but decided not to.

But those people aren't the victimized ones.  Because the elected representatives couldn't/wouldn't get it under control, it's ok to the people victimized?

Added emphasis.  

Government officials/others could have done something but didn't.  Innocent people get caught in crossfire.  Because government officials didn't address it, the innocents are just collateral damage?

Still confused. Who are "the innocents" you're talking about? The people getting dumped on who are complaining; people (in general) who will fall under new regulations; or people who were victimized (trolled?) by someone maliciously publishing their personal information. Much like was done to Amanda Todd. And apparently you.

That is what I'm confused over.

[40hz]

Note: liberties will be lost. But I don't blame the people screaming for redress. There will always be opportunists that seize on the what asking for additional regulations will present. I blame the people who knew better and could have kept the situation under control - but decided not to.

But those people aren't the victimized ones.  Because the elected representatives couldn't/wouldn't get it under control, it's ok to the people victimized?

Added emphasis. 

Government officials/others could have done something but didn't.  Innocent people get caught in crossfire.  Because government officials didn't address it, the innocents are just collateral damage?

I dunno, they are starting to "address it" but when they do they're leaving truck sized holes for abuse. "Let's require all the names of every handle ever" etc. That's not how I want to see it "Addressed".

Me neither.

But it might be a little too late for that now that the genie is starting to get out of the bottle.

So it goes....

[TaoPhoenix]

The Web IS different. It really is.

Dunno. It's a public place like any other AFAICT.

Why do people go into public spaces? To flirt a little. To do some business. To entertain or be entertained. To get the news. To preach 'the word,' be it religious or political. To find somebody interesting to talk to.

Maybe the web gives you newer and more efficient ways to do all of that. But I don't really see anything on a fundamental level that's any different than what has come before. It's one more "tool for conviviality" as I forgot who put it.

Most of the people arguing for the Internet's "newness" and how it represented a "break with everything that came before" were people in their 20-s and 30s. Most were what would generally be considered geek types. Not exactly the best 'read' people when it came to understanding history, anthropology, philosophy, or psychology.

Interesting to note how so little of the "real promise" the web advocates claimed it represented ever came to pass. The web gave us more of "more," but not really much that was "different."

The web? Sure. Maybe it''s faster. Or cheaper. Or (so far) more consequence and responsibility free than much of what came before it. But viewed as what it is, and what it's used for, it's the 'same old same old.' The only real difference is found in it's efficiency AFAIC.

There are those who see it differently.

YMMV.

My Mileage Is Varying.

The efficiency is the point. Communication of any kind has its limits, and that's a different field. But just look, wherever you are based out of, to get quick replies to specific concept threads, and privacy abuses aside, the new web services, HAS changed my life. I could never drive intelligently before a GPS. I have read 100,000 words on 500 topics from net posts. You don't get any of that just trying to talk to Joe and Aunt Martha and your 7 neighbors.

We've got a lot of new problems, but they're advancing the growth of our race. It's getting painful, but maybe/in a sense that's part of the process - to thrash all that out until it settles so well it's like the old hat of the 50's in a history book.

[wraith808]

Still confused. Who are "the innocents" you're talking about? The people getting dumped on who are complaining; people (in general) who will fall under new regulations; or people who were victimized (trolled?) by someone maliciously publishing their personal information. Much like was done to Amanda Todd. And apparently you.

That is what I'm confused over.

The innocents are those that will get caught in the crossfire if this mob mentality takes off, and people start outing people as a form of retaliation.  In any situation where the mob starts taking things in their own hands, innocents are caught in the crossfire, both with and without malicious intent (see the French Revolution).

[40hz]

Still confused. Who are "the innocents" you're talking about? The people getting dumped on who are complaining; people (in general) who will fall under new regulations; or people who were victimized (trolled?) by someone maliciously publishing their personal information. Much like was done to Amanda Todd. And apparently you.

That is what I'm confused over.

The innocents are those that will get caught in the crossfire if this mob mentality takes off, and people start outing people as a form of retaliation.  In any situation where the mob starts taking things in their own hands, innocents are caught in the crossfire, both with and without malicious intent (see the French Revolution).

FWIW they already do. Government and big businesses have already proven themselves very adept at ferreting out identities and personal information for questionable uses for several years now.

As one FBI person I know put it: For us it's seldom a question of who/what/when/where/why or how. For us, the really big question is: can we prove it.

[Tinman57]

I can recall less than 20 ish really negative replies I have received to 5000 posts I have made on the web.

20ish?  That's all???  Your lucky.  I've found it don't matter how neutral you try to be on a subject, there's always a herd of schittheads that make it their personal agenda to write something negative in response.  There's always someone that will pick apart whatever you say and try to turn it into something out of context, with the main agenda to pick a fight or bully.  You know.....Trolls.

[40hz]

^Which is why it's wise to either pick your venues or develop a thicker skin.

I prefer to pick the venue - which is why you'll find me mostly here at DoCo. 

[wraith808]

I prefer to pick the venue - which is why you'll find me mostly here at DoCo. 

Exactly.   And for all of our little disagreements, there is definitely a level of respect and genuine search for understanding and sharing that's not found in too many places.