Specialist sounds like they need someone with a thicker skin for that role. Most 'social media' roles are filled with snowflakes anyway, staffing failure. Stay offline.
This kind of discourse sounds very much alike to the school yard bully calling others "snowflakes". Where do we draw the line on abusive language? Should it be totally accepted online and only in school yards banned? Should it be allowed everywhere? Should we allow the president mock people with disabilities? "Stick and stones can break my bones but words never harm me" sounds a bit antiquated nowadays but should we come back to that age of disrespect for the others, only because it's not physical?
Social interactions are full of gray areas and legislation obviously doesn't and can't catch it all. Some people have rather controversial definitions of violence and abuse. Though, I think social consensus is that physical violence threats are well beyond any grayness.
> Given she's the BBC's disinformation specialist, it's also not reasonable to expect her to stay off social media.
Why not? Why should every journalist be professionally active on Twitter? There is no reason why every journalist should be active on Twitter, they could just stop. I don't think anything bad would happen from that, rather I would even expect that the quality of articles would improve if journalists didn't obsess over Twitter so much.
Can you explain why she absolutely have to be active and post on social media on a professional account? I don't see it, she can research disinformation and write articles even if she isn't active and commenting on events in real time on Twitter.
A problem with that (aside from victim blaming) is that you don't even need to use social media to be part of the overarching concern. YouTube recommends vile shit and you need to vigilantly ask it to not recommend misogynistic garbage or it will train you to feed on the drip of hate. You're always at risk of being infected with the brain worms and could set out to abuse others.
If you read through the article it becomes clear that the solution isn't to stop online abuse (difficult to distinguish between healthy dialogue) but surveillance companies need to stop training the abusers with their Skinner Boxes. And they don't because hate fuels engagement.
DONT use hate filled platforms who flourish from hate and make no one happy. There is just no point in talking the world and hope that just the most civilized and humble peoples will answer you.
Is there a safe and official way to give your account to a relation firm (and choose exactly what they can and can not do with it if possible)? Just handing a password from my Facebook/Google/whatever account to someone else doesn't sound good. Many people even use their accounts to log-in to everything and run their whole life and business so a leak can be catastrophic.
It's trivial to stop it. Go off-line, problem solved.
What those people really want is the ability to control other's people speech by claiming that subjective attacks on them like 'online abuse' are real.
When you say 'subjective attacks', do you include threats to rape, maim and murder? Because that's what this person faces.
I don't think that the right response to someone who has faced a threat to themselves or their families is to tell them to toughen up, or to hide. Neither of those would be accepted in the material world.
N.B. this doesn't mean I'm automatically in favor of removing anonymity on the 'net. I'm really not sure what I believe about that yet. But if I understand what you're saying correctly, then I disagree strongly.
Acquaintance of mine was attacked by neo-nazis on street due to his online activity. Threats should be taken real, because some of them will result in physical violence.
Because there are people who do follow up on threats. It's the same reason why when someone calls in a bomb threat, the police evacuate everyone and bring in the bomb squad.
We're talking about a woman, not "a person". Thats important in this context. A woman with a very public job that cant stand the backlash which comes with her job description. Of course, the whole world has to change now, because she cant be bothered to toughen up.
Trying to pitch empathy to somebody who just referred to "person" and "woman" as exclusive concepts may be a waste of your time. You seem like a much better person than they do, at least.
There is a difference between refusing to fall for manipulative writing and lack of empathy. Since we're already on such a personal level, I advice you to concentrate on your Torrent download and Crypto hobbies, instead of lecturing others about empathy.
Oooh, looks like I touched a nerve. Nobody is lecturing you. Go back to reddit, where your half-assed unempathtic (and misogynist) contrarionism will belong.
I have always been a passionate free cyberspace and anonymity supporter but those were the days when the Internet was predominantly inhabited by reasonably grown-up, intelligent and educated people. Many of such people preferred to be nice and friendly but many used to enjoy fun of rude language and humor, yet that was Ok as nobody could reasonably suspect they take that seriously and actually hate anybody (let alone are going to go do anything bad offline) when saying something impolite.
Now as everyone is online, including all kind of people with mediocre IQ and EQ from underage children to religious extremists and the Internet is also full of bots and agents of propaganda I feel like the most popular places like Facebook (which have became more influential than TV, let alone newspapers) really should be watched and moderated thoroughly.
I still feel like private and semi-private places where reasonably low numbers of likely-minded people hang out and speak freely like they would in their own kitchen (rather than when visiting a kindergarten accompanied by a probation officer) should be allowed to exist though.
The people sending the messages and threats are online. They can kill her due to the radicalized state the networks push them to even if she's offline and this happened in the past.
I think you read the bad title... The article is fair and correct. There's an inherent problem with the social network algorithms that radicalizes extreme views. This isn't free speech. It's the opposite of that. Facebook nudges these people into an echo chamber of hatred. They don't hear contradictory speech that might get through and moderate them a bit. Just the hatred to keep them online and clicking.
This implies that the individual doing the horrible posting is not culpable for their own actions; Facebook is for nudging them into an echo chamber.
Where's the inflection point where one has ultimate authority over their own actions? I find it hard to swallow the pill of "the social network made me do it."
To be clear, I'm not saying social media doesn't have or amplify problems. I just fear the abdication of personal responsibility there. That leads to some seriously dark avenues.
It is odd how much bullying goes on in real life whether at school, the playground, the workplace or among social friends.
Should we outlaw all such non-physical “bullying”?
I remember in college when the losing side in a debate called the winning side bullies.
Online bullying is a from of status seeking performative art. It is usually the bigotry of the alleged anti-bigots.
Public personas with platforms to bully like the NY Times “journalist” Taylor Lorenz lie and attack the weak. And when they are called out for their lies and attacks, they hide behind the “bullying” trope and demand censorship.
Many people avoid Twitter for example precisely because it is a cesspool of status seeking bullies and trolls. While it might seem to be a mirror of society, it is only a mirror of a small self-selected microcosm. It comes with both the good and bad.
But censorship of the “bad” is not an answer as a normal conversation to some is a trigger to others.
Of course the dominant power structure will always exploit such censorious demands to censor the weak and powerless.
Beware what you wish for
- Aesops fables
-
On a side note she is the BBC “disinformation” specialist. The BBC just walked back on it’s fake news regarding the Syria Douma chemical attack story.
Is that bullying to point out they are publishing fake news?
Conflating the use of the word bullying by people trying to deflect their own misdeeds with actual, real world bullying of people based on their race, their sexual preference or even just their perceived weakness when compared to others seems like a convenient excuse to continue to let the strong continue to bully the weak.
People have committed suicide over online bullying. Were those people liars who attacked the weak and thus deserved the harassment they received from others? Who did a person on Instagram who is made fun of because of their looks "bully", using your definition, to deserve the negative attention they received? What platform did the Star Wars kid abuse to warrant all the laughter and derision he suffered?
People who abuse a position of authority and then hide behind claims of harassment or bullying deserve to be called out; but let's not pretend they are somehow a majority and that actual bullying leading to people either harming themselves or shutting themselves off completely from society is not a real problem.
I believe only a bully would call the others "snowflakes". That's the tell-tale sign for me. Because there might be arguments for either side, but as soon as you see that labeling you immediately know to which kind of person you're talking.
I was playing Call of Duty and a 12 year old boy just told me he had sexual intercourse with my elderly mother. This is unacceptable. Why can't it be stopped?
Read the article. Not the stupid headline. She made an experiment where it shows quite clearly how the networks take problematic people and make them worse by bombarding them with constant misogynistic content.
This fits perfectly with the stories about Facebook. They tune the algorithm for retention not to keep people informed. As a result it makes them more extreme in their views. We might have fewer terrorists, shooting and rape if they just used a normal clean news feed instead of targeting everything.
i think u read too many "you-must-be-angry-at-this" type of articles. Poeple are not "misogynistic", nor is there much "misogynistic" content online except ofcourse if you label everything as "misogynistic". Most of the times when someone calls something "misogynistic" it's just a person that has a different opinion.
As for the bullying, kids will be kids. Parents should teach their kids to be nice and teach that if people are assholes, you can always log-off facebook and look for nicer people/places. #we-live-in-a-society
Facebook causes terrorism, murder, and rape? What evidence was the basis of that conclusion?
I’m guessing the solution is a global network of unaccountable mandarins to institute a global Clockwork Orange style brainwashing campaign targeting people with the audacity of having bad opinions? In the populations where this has been implemented, say North Korea, China, Cambodia, Russia and friends, were the populations worse or better for the experience?
I took the parent’s suggestion to mean they’re asking for a chronological news feed instead of one that prioritizes engagement. So not censorship or anything like that.
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for flamewar and ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of ideology.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
I don't like discussing more general problems in specific terms (in this case, misogyny). Obviously, there is much more hate against women and women are disproportionately affected by online hate.
But problem is systemic - justice system ignores all forms of hate and targeting only specific issue (misogyny) instead of holding people accountable of their actions online, feels like putting band aid on rotting wound. I used to receive death threats based on my political views (I live in strongly conservative country and I'm vocally liberal), sexual orientation and gender expression. Police didn't take any action on these, or even if action was taken, "proceedings were discontinued due to failure to identify perpetrators" (they had name and city in their Facebook profiles).
You can't undo non-intelligence of an idiot by yelling at them until they stop, I tried. They just get more confused and desperate. You can't smack someone in their face or in the back while they are performing an unwanted behavior to stop it, either. It is apparently well known in behavioral psychology that doing so reinforces the behavior, counterintuitively.
I think such a broad scoped problem as "hate against women" should be labeled as specific as being disgustingly misogynistic or prone to conspiracy. A lot of times those violent pricks are just having their small virgin brains overloaded by the internet. What they need are training and withdrawal.
This comment section is just atrocious. stopping bullying is something any institution that cares about the well-being of those in its care try to tackle. it is not about pandering to snowflakes. are we really going to call young people who get bullied for looking different, snowflakes? that's the language that we as adults want to use discussing things that drive people to suicide?
and for all those who say don't go online, humans are social creatures. they like to socialize. that's the whole point of social media. by design or not these are now virtual public spaces. and thus they have a responsibility to their users to make sure the discourse doesn't allow bullying. it won't ever work 100 percent but that shouldn't stop is from devising ever more efficient ways to stop bullying. should schools allow bullys free rein just because its their free speech right and if the victim didn't like it, they could have stayed in the class during recess?
Pardon me; did malls ever have a responsibility to stop bullying? Convention centers? Anywhere else that people hang out for that matter?
All this talk of platform policing seems to leave out one thing: the certainty of running into horrible people online approaches 1 because there are horrible people out there. It just used to be the regular person never had the potential of having to deal with all of them at once, of which a critical mass of them looking your way could be life altering.
Instead of asking for a nanny web, perhaps we should be asking for a better grade of person to people it. The last thing we need is digital nanny state that can be abusively exploited by those who run it, Make no mistake. Such an edifice would draw those seeking to abuse it to justify or entrench their own views on appropriate behavior like moths to a flame
Totally missing the main point of the article. FB is actively leading people down a dark path. Your mall or convention centre doesn’t so that, but FB’s attention-optimising algorithms do. FB must be very happy for people to bang on about free speech and hate speech because then they’re not looking at how FB actually works.
What I'm saying is bullies gonna bully. With or without Facebook's help. The only thing that keeps it in check is everyone else. Facebook is undoubtedly part of the problem, but I don't see Facebook serving ads "how to more effectively troll", "go on, doxx your friends", "hound someone to suicide".
No, that's a case of problem existing between keyboard and chair independent of what websites are visited. You can argue Facebook makes it worse, but then you can't realistically stop there. Every platform does that doesn't moderate to some $subgroup's liking.
I am sorry but you complete misrepresented my comments and are now making a straw man argument. I did not state that a state controlled many web is the answer anywhere in my comment. you seem to have come up with that on your own. so let's leave that alone
now regarding malls, the incentives are different, so yes for the most part they do. at least in the country I live in at the moment. it is in their best interest to get more people in the door and for longer, can't do that if they keep getting harrased. I don't know why you think they wouldn't.
no other business benefits from emotional dark patterns as much as these platforms
It's not my intent to construct a strawman at all. As an American, and as someone who while growing up was regularly a target for abuse by members of my peer group, I'm trying to get across the fact that creating an an organizational obligation to "control" this aberrant behavior doesn't work. Ever. The most effective deterrent, is exercising that responsibility as an individual standing up for common decency. Not one place is an effective deterrer of things, generally because while you might get a bump initially, it wanes over time. In fact, the times when bullying is most likrly is exactly where bullies know organizational blind spots exist. If you formalize a policy on it, they basically know exactly what to look out for.
I one hundred percent agree the dark patterns are an issue. The thing is I disagree with the conclusion of dark pattern use causes bullying that otherwise wouldn't happen to happen.
Awful people gonna awful. Nada's gonna change that. There's therefore a balance point between creating organizational levers to pull to compel action vs. realizable level of attainment of suppression of deleterious behavior.
I'm just saying; doing something about dark pattern use should be just that; don't conflate it with the eternal struggle against getting bullies to stop bullying.
I actually worked as a security guard through most of college, split amongst various sites including out local mall. We actually called it "harassment" not bullying, but we absolutely took it seriously and you could find yourself banned from the mall pretty easily, and none of the "boys will be boys" or "he's a good kid" that you'll often see used to excuse the behavior in schools. Frankly, my opinion is the mall probably dealt with it MORE effectively than my high school.
Growing up, the most effective anti-bullying enforcement was pretty much bystanders, and a minority thereof to boot. Don't know whether the difference was, but 90% of the time for me, official intervention was nowhere near as effective as that that just happening to see something and intervening because they felt it was wrong.
I don't know why I expect anything better when I go into an HN comment section about anything that isn't purely tech. The comments are just disgusting. Bullying is indefensible and yet here we have people defending it!
That might be the closest real world analogue to online spaces. People turn their inhibitions way down when communicating online. A digital bouncer is especially important when you combine that with the fact that so many more people can pile on someone than can in a physical space.
If someone would call me a "daft cow" i would laugh my ass off. If you find that hurtful, you probably had bad parents that didnt learn you how to take insults or criticism. Why even care what others say? Do you really really really need that validation?
Anyway, you can block people or just stop using facebook. Stop whining, you're not a baby anymore.
Reading the article , the part where it gets interesting is when she creates the "Barry" account and within 2 weeks Barry gets inundated with examples of hate.
That sounds like an actual broken recommendation system, rather than just the unfortunate-but-perhaps-unavoidable "keeping the noise down to a dull roar".
It can be stopped if we changed social media to be, well social. If there was no public posts on Facebook, no public groups, there would be just your friends and you could talk with them. There could still be private groups, so that you could organize a surprise birthday party or whatever, but nothing would be public.
The issue with social media is that humans are not wired to deal with that many humans in one place, so you end up with disfunctional behaviour.
And, unlike what the media wants to sell it as, these attacks are not, per say, misogynistic. The bully doesn't care what he attacks you over, he finds what he thinks is a soft spot and then strikes. Insecurity over gender, beauty, social standing, racial identity, etc can all be used.
The goal is to get a reaction out of you, and if he gets one he wins. He does not actually care that you are fat, a woman, or whatever.
64 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 85.2 ms ] thread2. If you are a public person and want to use Social-Media give your account to a public relation firm.
Given she's the BBC's disinformation specialist, it's also not reasonable to expect her to stay off social media.
Social interactions are full of gray areas and legislation obviously doesn't and can't catch it all. Some people have rather controversial definitions of violence and abuse. Though, I think social consensus is that physical violence threats are well beyond any grayness.
aka. Propagandist
Why not? Why should every journalist be professionally active on Twitter? There is no reason why every journalist should be active on Twitter, they could just stop. I don't think anything bad would happen from that, rather I would even expect that the quality of articles would improve if journalists didn't obsess over Twitter so much.
Can you explain why she absolutely have to be active and post on social media on a professional account? I don't see it, she can research disinformation and write articles even if she isn't active and commenting on events in real time on Twitter.
If you want to brag about your work especially as a "disinformation specialist" be prepared for some stormy waters.
A problem with that (aside from victim blaming) is that you don't even need to use social media to be part of the overarching concern. YouTube recommends vile shit and you need to vigilantly ask it to not recommend misogynistic garbage or it will train you to feed on the drip of hate. You're always at risk of being infected with the brain worms and could set out to abuse others.
If you read through the article it becomes clear that the solution isn't to stop online abuse (difficult to distinguish between healthy dialogue) but surveillance companies need to stop training the abusers with their Skinner Boxes. And they don't because hate fuels engagement.
I don't blame anybody, i just say:
DONT use hate filled platforms who flourish from hate and make no one happy. There is just no point in talking the world and hope that just the most civilized and humble peoples will answer you.
Not if you're already doxxed, it doesn't. These situations can easily expand into hate mail and phone calls.
What those people really want is the ability to control other's people speech by claiming that subjective attacks on them like 'online abuse' are real.
I don't think that the right response to someone who has faced a threat to themselves or their families is to tell them to toughen up, or to hide. Neither of those would be accepted in the material world.
N.B. this doesn't mean I'm automatically in favor of removing anonymity on the 'net. I'm really not sure what I believe about that yet. But if I understand what you're saying correctly, then I disagree strongly.
Why do people insist on taking other people (and social media) so seriously?
Nazis kill people.
They know they can get a response and flex power in real and perceptible ways. That test today? Nope.
Same with trolling and online activity. This is also why there was generally the rule of don't chuck your personal info out there period.
Now as everyone is online, including all kind of people with mediocre IQ and EQ from underage children to religious extremists and the Internet is also full of bots and agents of propaganda I feel like the most popular places like Facebook (which have became more influential than TV, let alone newspapers) really should be watched and moderated thoroughly.
I still feel like private and semi-private places where reasonably low numbers of likely-minded people hang out and speak freely like they would in their own kitchen (rather than when visiting a kindergarten accompanied by a probation officer) should be allowed to exist though.
I think you read the bad title... The article is fair and correct. There's an inherent problem with the social network algorithms that radicalizes extreme views. This isn't free speech. It's the opposite of that. Facebook nudges these people into an echo chamber of hatred. They don't hear contradictory speech that might get through and moderate them a bit. Just the hatred to keep them online and clicking.
Where's the inflection point where one has ultimate authority over their own actions? I find it hard to swallow the pill of "the social network made me do it."
To be clear, I'm not saying social media doesn't have or amplify problems. I just fear the abdication of personal responsibility there. That leads to some seriously dark avenues.
Should we outlaw all such non-physical “bullying”?
I remember in college when the losing side in a debate called the winning side bullies.
Online bullying is a from of status seeking performative art. It is usually the bigotry of the alleged anti-bigots.
Public personas with platforms to bully like the NY Times “journalist” Taylor Lorenz lie and attack the weak. And when they are called out for their lies and attacks, they hide behind the “bullying” trope and demand censorship.
Many people avoid Twitter for example precisely because it is a cesspool of status seeking bullies and trolls. While it might seem to be a mirror of society, it is only a mirror of a small self-selected microcosm. It comes with both the good and bad.
But censorship of the “bad” is not an answer as a normal conversation to some is a trigger to others.
Of course the dominant power structure will always exploit such censorious demands to censor the weak and powerless.
Beware what you wish for - Aesops fables
-
On a side note she is the BBC “disinformation” specialist. The BBC just walked back on it’s fake news regarding the Syria Douma chemical attack story.
Is that bullying to point out they are publishing fake news?
https://then24.com/2021/09/06/syria-bbc-admits-dissemination...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9958679/BBC-admits-...
https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d514d7a457a4e32457a6333566d54/...
People have committed suicide over online bullying. Were those people liars who attacked the weak and thus deserved the harassment they received from others? Who did a person on Instagram who is made fun of because of their looks "bully", using your definition, to deserve the negative attention they received? What platform did the Star Wars kid abuse to warrant all the laughter and derision he suffered?
People who abuse a position of authority and then hide behind claims of harassment or bullying deserve to be called out; but let's not pretend they are somehow a majority and that actual bullying leading to people either harming themselves or shutting themselves off completely from society is not a real problem.
Aw, shucks, I guess we’re just going to have to adopt global despotism to stop this crisis of rude behavior.
This fits perfectly with the stories about Facebook. They tune the algorithm for retention not to keep people informed. As a result it makes them more extreme in their views. We might have fewer terrorists, shooting and rape if they just used a normal clean news feed instead of targeting everything.
As for the bullying, kids will be kids. Parents should teach their kids to be nice and teach that if people are assholes, you can always log-off facebook and look for nicer people/places. #we-live-in-a-society
I’m guessing the solution is a global network of unaccountable mandarins to institute a global Clockwork Orange style brainwashing campaign targeting people with the audacity of having bad opinions? In the populations where this has been implemented, say North Korea, China, Cambodia, Russia and friends, were the populations worse or better for the experience?
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
But problem is systemic - justice system ignores all forms of hate and targeting only specific issue (misogyny) instead of holding people accountable of their actions online, feels like putting band aid on rotting wound. I used to receive death threats based on my political views (I live in strongly conservative country and I'm vocally liberal), sexual orientation and gender expression. Police didn't take any action on these, or even if action was taken, "proceedings were discontinued due to failure to identify perpetrators" (they had name and city in their Facebook profiles).
I think such a broad scoped problem as "hate against women" should be labeled as specific as being disgustingly misogynistic or prone to conspiracy. A lot of times those violent pricks are just having their small virgin brains overloaded by the internet. What they need are training and withdrawal.
and for all those who say don't go online, humans are social creatures. they like to socialize. that's the whole point of social media. by design or not these are now virtual public spaces. and thus they have a responsibility to their users to make sure the discourse doesn't allow bullying. it won't ever work 100 percent but that shouldn't stop is from devising ever more efficient ways to stop bullying. should schools allow bullys free rein just because its their free speech right and if the victim didn't like it, they could have stayed in the class during recess?
All this talk of platform policing seems to leave out one thing: the certainty of running into horrible people online approaches 1 because there are horrible people out there. It just used to be the regular person never had the potential of having to deal with all of them at once, of which a critical mass of them looking your way could be life altering.
Instead of asking for a nanny web, perhaps we should be asking for a better grade of person to people it. The last thing we need is digital nanny state that can be abusively exploited by those who run it, Make no mistake. Such an edifice would draw those seeking to abuse it to justify or entrench their own views on appropriate behavior like moths to a flame
No, that's a case of problem existing between keyboard and chair independent of what websites are visited. You can argue Facebook makes it worse, but then you can't realistically stop there. Every platform does that doesn't moderate to some $subgroup's liking.
now regarding malls, the incentives are different, so yes for the most part they do. at least in the country I live in at the moment. it is in their best interest to get more people in the door and for longer, can't do that if they keep getting harrased. I don't know why you think they wouldn't.
no other business benefits from emotional dark patterns as much as these platforms
I one hundred percent agree the dark patterns are an issue. The thing is I disagree with the conclusion of dark pattern use causes bullying that otherwise wouldn't happen to happen.
Awful people gonna awful. Nada's gonna change that. There's therefore a balance point between creating organizational levers to pull to compel action vs. realizable level of attainment of suppression of deleterious behavior.
I'm just saying; doing something about dark pattern use should be just that; don't conflate it with the eternal struggle against getting bullies to stop bullying.
They regularly kick assholes out.
Lookup “bouncers”.
If you are somehow against kicking assholes off twitter/Facebook, I guess you’re ok with having them crash your private party too?
Anyway, you can block people or just stop using facebook. Stop whining, you're not a baby anymore.
That sounds like an actual broken recommendation system, rather than just the unfortunate-but-perhaps-unavoidable "keeping the noise down to a dull roar".
The issue with social media is that humans are not wired to deal with that many humans in one place, so you end up with disfunctional behaviour.
And, unlike what the media wants to sell it as, these attacks are not, per say, misogynistic. The bully doesn't care what he attacks you over, he finds what he thinks is a soft spot and then strikes. Insecurity over gender, beauty, social standing, racial identity, etc can all be used.
The goal is to get a reaction out of you, and if he gets one he wins. He does not actually care that you are fat, a woman, or whatever.