Hacker News Reader

Comment by hnha | Hacker News Reader

oh, what a fruitful discussion this might trigger..

What I don't get is how they constantly counter-act the common rules on how to deal with trolls or stalkers. It really feels like they are bathing in the outrage, not interested in actually solving it. And that's one reason why I sadly don't feel any sympathy but rather understand the vocal (non socio-/psychopath) critics.

There is no fair discussion so I wish the media would simply stop with their help on filling the fire...

Disclaimer: Middle class white male who once got online death threats after banning a sociopath from a site of his. I discussed them privately, did not give any reaction to the freak apart from quickly banning the new accounts and where possible delete the verbal abuse. It took several weeks but ultimately it just got quite and we all live happily ever after.

View on HN

Give the Isometric podcast #18 a listen (http://5by5.tv/isometric/18). It might change your mind.

Also this: http://seriouspony.com/trouble-at-the-koolaid-point

Zoe Quinn tweeted today: "couldn't you just fucking not play my games. Fucking boycott me, don't work with me, just leave my dad alone". She got a dead squirrel in her mailbox a few days ago. Remember: she made a free indie game about depression and had a messy breakup with an ex. This is literally all she did. This type of reaction is no longer uncommon.

These women are really, actually suffering.

The article is about a speaker who has received numerous death threats declining to appear in front of an audience after the police said they would not turn away people carrying firearms.

In my eyes, this is a simple issue of personal safety. I would not speak under those conditions and I doubt you would either.

There's a massive difference between being harassed by a single individual who doesn't really know who you are and a massive group of people who know everything about you.

The common rule on how to deal with stalkers is call the police.

When you got abusive messages it was one person, marginalised and removed from a community. I assure you these people get plenty of reaction by showing their messages to their community. They will not go away if ignored.

The common rules on how to deal with trolls or stalkers work a lot better if you're the middle class white male who got online death threats once in his life, and not the women who get them every day backed by an organized harassment campaign.

I'm not sure what kind of fair discussion you expect here.

> What I don't get is how they constantly counter-act the common rules on how to deal with trolls or stalkers.

"Common rules" along the lines of "just ignore it" tend to make it easy to pretend such things aren't happening and ignore those calling it a serious issue.

I believe the "common rules" in this case are not "just ignore it" but rather: Take legal advice. Contact the police.

They would probably say "don't talk to the press about it, don't give the attacker more fuel".

In the realm of internet trolls, the classic rule is "don't feed the troll". but an internet troll doesn't make death threats...

The police generally are unable or unwilling to act on internet harassment.

> Middle class white male who once got online death threats after banning a sociopath from a site of his.

The problem is that you have a very narrow point of view. You're also limiting your viewpoint to just equality as opposed to going beyond it to ask 'what is fair?'.

http://jezebel.com/louis-c-k-on-men-we-re-the-no-1-cause-of-...

"I've read some blogs during this whole thing that have made me enlightened to things I didn't know. This woman said how rape is something that polices women's lives. They have a narrow corridor. They can't go out late, they can't go to certain neighborhoods, they can't get a certain way, because they might get-That's part of me now that wasn't before."

"Halfway through the new special, C.K. starts talking about how dating is an act of bravery for all involved. “The male courage, traditionally speaking, is that he decided to ask” a woman out. (Note the careful caveat, 'traditionally speaking.') And if the woman says yes, 'that’s her courage.' That kind of courage, he says, is beyond his imagining. 'How do women still go out with guys, when you consider that there is no greater threat to women than men? We’re the number one threat to women! Globally and historically, we’re the number one cause of injury and mayhem to women.' A moment later he adds, speaking for all men, 'You know what our number one threat is? Heart disease.'"

Speaking out against being harassed is not "bathing in the outrage". You sound completely biased, as well. I don't trust you as a neutral observer.

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?

Who is going against whose recommendations, and in what way?

Sarkeesian chose to not attend because she feared for her safety. Legally, the police could not prevent people from brining concealed weapons, and she did not feel safe. Your comment implies that she is somehow ignoring advice that would promote her safety, in order to gain more exposure. I don't see that happening.

Ahh, well the presumption is that the Police would say something like "please don't share these threats with the internet, just leave it with us". I would imagine that is what they would say. The logic being that it just gives the harassers more fuel. I'd hope that the police were being sensitive and helpful in this case.

I imagine that the police did not give any recommendations about the event, that they neither suggested she cancel or to go ahead.

My comment was asking questions about why someone would choose to publicise active threats against their person, assuming that police would have warned against it. I can imagine some scenarios where someone would choose to go against those recommendations - I imagine things must be very stressful and fraught.

Perhaps with Twitter, any threats are already public and so there could be no point not sharing them? Perhaps there is greater value in highlighting the online abuse and having a large amount of online support for ones cause than suffering in silence and trusting ones fate to the professionals?

I think our online networks are sorely missing effective abuse filters and controls.

> What I don't get is how they constantly counter-act the common rules on how to deal with trolls or stalkers.

Actually, the general advice is to tell everyone:

> Tell Everyone

> Report the incident to law enforcement. Notify the Commonwealth's Attorney and ask for help from your local victim/witness program. Let them know that you are afraid. Give friends, co-workers, and neighbors a description of the stalker. Ask them to document anything they see and record the time of the occurrence.

https://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/victims/documents/stalking.pdf

You don't solve problems by ignoring them and hoping that they go away, you have to expose and stop it before it gets worse or they'll just move onto the next person.

Funny how the default male response to a women's problem is almost always, "I will tell you a better way to handle this." Almost a cliché at this point.

Im sorry but that's just wrong. Let's change "default male position" and "almost always" to "feels like it after scrolling though this thread". I also think you confuse offering a second opinion with making an absolute statement. So "I will tell you a better way to handle this" becomes "I think this is a better way to handle this". Sound a lot better, doesn't it?

I don't want to put words in your mouth but I also think you're implying that the male in your example believes his way is better because he's a man and therefore smarter and all that nonsense. That's just unfair. The irony in phrasing it like that given the context is quite obvious though.

> I also think you're implying that the male in your example believes his way is better because he's a man and therefore smarter and all that nonsense

Oh, definitely not. I think the guy usually has no idea what he is doing and it's just reflexive behavior.

Fair enough. That's always been true for advice giving though. People usually don't really know what they're talking about and maybe that's okay. Even if the advice sometimes does more harm than good it's certainly almost always well intentioned and that's gotta count for something. Still, I think it's easy to see a double standard in what you said originally and that's just not fair.

Maybe I have to explain myself a little better. For the sake of this argument let's assume literally every time a women has a problem in this world a man talks to her and tells her what he thinks she should do. What exactly would be wrong with that?

I don't think that is the default male response at all. I am male and that is not my response.

Sorry, I meant "default" as in "most common."

Sorry for trying to help?! I did not realise that offering advice from personal experience of receiving online death threats (and what I thought was common professional advice from police and law enforcement) was sexist. No more sympathy from me.

Also funny how that "better way to handle this" is "be quiet and go away."

The default netizen position has always been "don't feed the trolls".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com