Hacker News Reader

Comment by gottam | Hacker News Reader

I find that hard to believe. Trolls who make threats on the internet (and not simply having differing opinions) typically make up a very small minority so they should be manageable by a small ban list (and if they aren't - what kind of stuff are you spewing out that makes so many people waste their time getting angry with you?)

It sounds more to me like even after getting banned, the minority of trolls can just make new accounts and resume their harassment, so the solution here isn't human intervention but a technical solution to disincentivize trolls from making new accounts.

View on HN

> Trolls who make threats on the internet

See this thread:

https://twitter.com/terraloire/status/686591765931921409

With the internet being as central to modern society as it is, instead of simply some USENET servers used by some college kids and bored sysadmins, there isn't really a distinction between "threats on the internet" and "threats" any more. (This is not to say that there's no longer a distinction between "idle threats" and "serious threats", of course, just that whether they're on the internet is not a determiner of them being idle.)

> (and if they aren't - what kind of stuff are you spewing out that makes so many people waste their time getting angry with you?)

"Normal" people get angry when they feel threatened. If you are challenging the status quo, it's not unusual for people who benefit from the status quo to get angry at you. This has been true for all of history, and arguing that you shouldn't upset the supporters of the status quo is quite literally arguing that Twitter should not be a platform for free speech.

It honestly sounds to me like you're approaching this from first principles / intuition, instead of any data (or analyses of data, which exist) about how internet harassment actually works.

> instead of simply some USENET servers used by some college kids and bored sysadmins, there isn't really a distinction between "threats on the internet" and "threats" any more.

The biggest thing that changed is instead of using anonymous handles, people got into the habit of using their personal information. From the link you included, that woman has what I assume is her name, her photo, her city, and her personal website - most of which is likely a gateway for googling more information. On her actual profile, her latest retweet is millennials mansplaining or something, one could say she's basically baiting a group of people she disagrees with, and further down she's calling Ricky Gervais a "whiny baby" (where does that fit under twitters rules?)

If I was spewing that kind of crap about people with my own name beside it, I guess I'd be worried about people finding where I live and harassing me too. It's mind boggling why people do this to themselves.

> It honestly sounds to me like you're approaching this from first principles / intuition, instead of any data (or analyses of data, which exist) about how internet harassment actually works.

It's why I asked. Maybe it's just that I think of the internet the same way I did 15 years ago where nobody online ever needs to know your name, age, sex, height, opinions, political affiliations, favorite food, etc unless you make it so, and when you want to start over with a clean slate, you can just remake internet accounts rather than having some dumb crap you said 10 years ago stick with you forever on google.

This is all legitimate. Unfortunately, we're in a culture -- one might almost call it a status quo, really -- where certain trolling and harassment is renamed "punching up" or "calling out" and is not only permitted but encouraged.

If we genuinely want harassment to stop, the very minimum that's necessary is for all people to be treated equally under the anti-harassment policies. Otherwise, why would those who are defined as valid targets have any investment in the smooth running of our systems? We'll create a permanent enemy and never have a day's peace until the end of time.

> and if they aren't - what kind of stuff are you spewing out that makes so many people waste their time getting angry with you?

The Bank of England phased out their £5 notes. English bank notes have portraits of famous people on them. The old note had a woman, the new note had a man. That meant that all English bank notes had portraits of men; there were no women on the notes.

Caroline Criado Perez the Bank of England to reconsider this decision, and asked for a woman to appear on at least one of the notes.

For that she was bombarded with messages. One man was sending about 50 an hour, for about 12 hours, across multiple accounts.

Other people sent fewer tweets, but those tweets were far more menacing.

Here's what the judge said about 2 people who sent threats of rape and murder:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Document...

> Here there were a series of communications (not just a single one as referred to in the guideline) where extreme language was used and substantial fear was caused.

> Indeed it is hard to imagine more extreme threats (death, rape, and worse [Sorley]) and rape [Nimmo]. The harm is, and (despite what is said on your behalf) must have been intended to be, very high.

> The fact that they were anonymous heightened the fear. The victims had no way of knowing how dangerous the people making the threats were, whether they had just come out of prison, or how to recognise and avoid them if they came across them in public.

And about blocking:

> The messages were posted on a number of different sites, and continued after being blocked and or warned

That is a problem, but that's not one that's solvable through human intervention or policy updates since its more a spam issue then simply harassment.

Services all the time like email have to work to combat spam, this is no different.

"I find that hard to believe."

You're probably not a woman in the tech field on the internet, then.

"and if they aren't - what kind of stuff are you spewing out that makes so many people waste their time getting angry with you?"

Stuff like women should simply be treated equally.

> You're probably not a woman in the tech field on the internet, then.

Can you be sure? You may have just invalidated my own experiences as a woman. Am I obligated to now tell you my gender so you know for sure if you're being misogynist or not? But I guess its okay because I'm an anonymous stranger on the internet and you didn't know I was a woman to give me special treatment? It's a lot to think about.

> Stuff like women should simply be treated equally.

Yes. Women are "stuff".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com