Hacker News Reader

Comment by causi | Hacker News Reader

who also has skin in the game about being on the receiving end of the most horrific online abuse

Do people just not get educated in online literacy anymore? An adult getting abused online is like getting third degree burns because you laid your hand on a hot burner and refused to take it off. If people saying mean things to you is disturbing your groove so much you're calling it "abuse" maybe you should stop reading them. This is stuff from the first week of 1990s computer class in elementary school.

View on HN

I don't think you've really experienced online abuse.

If you get in an argument with someone and they start saying nasty things, then it's simple to disengage. You just stop replying and you don't go back to the thread. In this scenario, your comment makes sense, but you should count yourself very lucky if this is the worst you've experienced.

Personally, I pissed off a cult leader and she sent her followers to harass me. They used email and social networks, among other methods, to send me regular messages accusing me of all sorts of horrible things. If I followed your suggestion of "stop reading them" it would mean I no longer check my email or social networks...

For those inexperienced with these matters, it may seem like I can just block the messages, but in many cases that's near impossible. A "professional" abuser knows all about VPNs and will just keep creating new email addresses.

I have, and he's right

also, learn not to overexpose yourself with your real id online, also from 1990s internet 101

the idiotic model of the 2020s with everybody posting their entire private lives with their real names and profiles that have their mugs in circles, and then proceed to broadcast hot takes they're afraid to get feedback on - it doesn't work and it's stupid

I'm not convinced the "solution" to abuse is to remain completely anonymous online.

It's not just a solution to abuse, but also protection from nasty governments and good infosec

What's wrong with it as a solution?

Seems a bit paranoid for one thing.

Also, it's unfair and cruel to put the responsibility for preventing abuse onto the abused. The person engaging in dysfunctional behavior is the problem, not their victims.

Sure, you can avoid being bullied by staying hidden all the time, and I guess that works for some people but it doesn't sit well with me.

the dysfunctional behaviour online is that of the 2020s, not the 1990s

the draconian legislation attempts we're seen now are the govt's weaponisation of 2020s dysfunctional behaviour to shut down the free internet wholesale and substitute it with a heavily surveilled and censored alternative that actually benefits from the child-like narcissism of the 2020s

Not a coordinated campaign like yours but I've been doxxed and had half a dozen death threats.

A "professional" abuser knows all about VPNs and will just keep creating new email addresses.

You had no luck with keyword filters? You have my sympathy.

Keyword filters simply don't work unless the abuse follows a very specific pattern that legit messages do not. It's not an effective method of curtailing abuse.

You're talking like someone who doesn't live in a hyper-connected, hyper-online society. The same poor argument could made to verbal harassment. "Put in some headphones!"

You don't have to be hyper-online or hyper-connected.

I spend time with people in person or on the phone usually. We, gasp, _do things_ like go to restaurants or go camping. Sometimes we all sit on the sofa in a big pile and share snacks and watch movies or talk about life.

It's nice. Sometimes I'm even alone and get to read a dead tree book or just enjoy nature.

What happens "on the internet" is of very low importance, slightly below my choice of socks or what brand of snack to get.

If you don't engage with the system whose regulation is being discussed at all, and don't care one way or the other, then volunteering this information in a discussion of the regulation and how it relates to the problems you don't have is the lowest effort form of decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio of the conversation.

and don't care one way or the other

Obviously we do care, otherwise we wouldn't comment. You don't have to be terminally-online to have an opinion about what we should be allowed to do online.

I would make that argument if I could push a button and make that person disappear from my sight and hearing. Ironically verbal harassment is much more protected. I'm free to get a group of people together and go chant "You're a cunt!" outside the Palace of Westminster.

Unfortunately headphones don't work that well. If it were possible to have whitelists and blacklists of people you could see and hear in real life then yes, headphones would be a solution.

While I don't disagree with you, it's important to remember that these companies spend billions of dollars to literally make their product addictive.

In school we teach kids how to be responsible with alcohol and drugs. But some still become addicted. The same applies to social media.

The difference is that instead of the pusher being some shady character at the back of the school bus, it's a massive company with marketing, public relations, and lobbying teams.

Sure, and doomscrolling, misinformation, and the constant need for external validation are horrific problems. I don't think they're quite on the subject when we're talking about people's refusal to disengage with online hostility. It's like trying to make it illegal for people to flip you the bird in traffic. Is it a nice thing to do? Absolutely not, but letting it ruin your life is completely optional. The same thing applies to people on Facebook telling you to go fuck yourself.

> An adult getting abused online is like getting third degree burns because you laid your hand on a hot burner and refused to take it off

This analogy is broken on quite a few levels. When did the internet become a hot burner?

The internet is not designed to get hot - it's not a cooking device. If your laptop consistently got so hot it burned your lap, you'd try to fix it, not say "of course it does that".

> If people saying mean things to you is disturbing your groove so much you're calling it "abuse" maybe you should stop reading them

There are laws governing abusive behaviour in person. Our society does not just advice people to "just not listen".

Why would you expect different principles to apply to online and in-person behaviour?

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/verbal-abuse-and-harassmen...

Why would you expect the internet to be governed by different laws to in-person behaviour?

Because you can't instantly erase someone from your perception in person to person interaction. Online you can even proactively protect yourself, such as by adding words and phrases you don't like to your blocklist. Suppose I decide I don't ever want to interact with someone who still uses the word "retard". My computer can preemptively block those people on my Twitter, my email, even pages containing the word on my browser. It takes only seconds to wipe entire categories of people and opinion from every facet of your online experience.

> instantly erase someone from your perception in person to person interaction.

As easily as you can block a message, so too can abuser create a new account.

Online harassment can be as persistent as in-person harassment - there's countless stories of people being continuously harassed. If it were so easy to block people online 'cyberstalking' wouldn't be such a big problem in the same area.

That's when you create a new account. The obsession with linking your real life to your online life is the most toxic change to internet culture since the web started.

Thank you. I see so many people here who seem intent on linking their online identity to their real life identity, a trend popularized by social media and which is in direct contravention to the common sense advice we used to give people: don't upload PII on the internet.

I understand many people rely on social media for professional networking but there's absolutely no reason why you have to use this professional networking account to trade verbal jabs with people on contentious topics, or confront trolls, or start political debates, etc. Make an alt if you want to slum it in the comments section. Again, this was common sense 20 years ago, and now seems like it's lost knowledge.

Exactly. I can't count the number of people whose professional output I greatly admire but who destroyed themselves in my eyes by being fuckwads on Twitter.

> The obsession with linking your real life to your online life is the most toxic change to internet culture since the web started.

Seconded.

As the saying goes; "What is the difference between posting something on the internet and a tattoo on your arse?..... It's easier to remove the tattoo."

Because that personal information you posted or 'offensive' joke you posted when pissed will stay around forever to haunt you.

all ephemeral, leave no trace or context

> If your laptop consistently got so hot it burned your lap, you'd try to fix it, not say "of course it does that".

Not if the fix isn't worth the price and will be abused to stiffle competition and for governments and companies to get control over interpersonal communication.

And yet people keep complaining about "cancel culture".

People saying things about you can affect you even if you don't read them.

No, it is not. Examples of online abuse that go well beyond "disturbing your groove" are well documented. Online abuse, like climate change, is proven beyond reasonable doubt and we should probably do something about both.

And every case of online abuse can be solved by returning to the pseudo anonymity style of the 2000s. Have an email address for just your friends, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com