Please Die3: The Abuse of Freedom 405
Do hostile environments matter?
Sure. It makes no sense to construct and maintain commercial websites that exclude most of humanity, or punish them when they try to join communal discussions. Women have a right to speak publicly; so do older people, foreigners, newcomers, newbies. The Internet was never conceived as the sole preserve anyone as a the sole preserve of technologically skilled young white men.
But hostile environments will present a worsening problem for e-communities until the notion of taking responsibility for one's own words - even online - takes hold. So far, it hasn't.
Communities naturally tend to exclude some people and make others feel welcome. But the founders of this site never meant for Slashdot to be an exclusive club for programmers using a particular computer operating system.
In an age where technology is increasingly becoming the dominant social, economic, cultural and political reality of our time, inclusion does matter. In the 21st Century, human beings will have to make unimaginably complex decisions about research, privacy, artificial intelligence, intellectual property issues, and more. Technology, and the variety of concerns springing from it, constitute the most pressing issues of contemporary life.
But where can people go to form techno-centered communities, to gather information about technology and figure out what they think about it?
Sites like Slashdot are a natural place, but these kinds of conversations are impossible here, short-circuited by angry kids often with anonymous pseuds. The Web's failure to produce or maintain common discussion grounds is getting to be a serious problem with real consequences. Misinformation about genetic research, online safety - even the Y2K problems - spreads primarily because intelligent public discussion of these issues isn't possible, except in places where nobody knows much about them, like Congress or on TV talk shows.
In the off-line world, mutual benefit is the core of community. Real people provide help, entertainment, commerce, religion, companionship - the concrete benefits of which keep the community going and sustain its members. Online, especially on technical sites, the primary benefit is information - news, software, hardware, cultural trends and information. Since there is no physical proximity (although gatherings of members often do meet in different cities), it's possible for members to benefit from this information without reciprocating - or even communicating.
Most online hostility doesn't stem from an absence of community, but from a misunderstanding of what it is. As in real-world communities, veterans react fearfully to outsiders (You might call this the John Rocker Syndrome - he's the Atlanta Braves pitcher who recently complained about too many "foreigners" being permitted into New York City and the United States.
Communities are also greatly affected - and threatened by - the evolution of their common interests. Topics are the lifeblood of any digital community, the single most reliable indicator of a community's vitality and life-span.
Again, Slashdot is a relevant example, a new kind of website. Initially, its focus was the things that most interested Rob Malda, its creator - "Legos, Linux, Movies Hardware", is how he describes it. Recently, it's broadened to include those subjects and a growing focus on technology and culture. As it grows and broadens, some of its self-appointed border guards have become increasingly agitated and resentful. Sites are also affected by internal political divisions and factions which crop up wherever humans gather.
Online communications are fluid, continuously evolving. Mailing lists and messaging software make it easier than ever to form smaller, adaptive communities - buddy, family, friend and work lists. These almost function as private associations, attracting countless small communities of people with similar interests - college students or music lovers, for example - who know one another, either virtually or in the real world, and have a vested interest in avoiding cruelty and hostility. They have things to offer one another; besides, in environments like schools, there's always the likelihood of a face-to-face encounter. It's striking how timid the most fearsome flamers become face to face. Big open websites with anonymous postings foster no such restraint.
Are hostile environments simply a trade-off for freedom, then, one of the permanent legacies of the talented young men who helped build the Net and are building it still?
Do the people running websites have any responsibility for creating environments which are truly free, and not dominated by the most hostile members? Should we be concerned that entire social groups - women, newcomers - don't feel welcome here? Is there a responsibility to offer people a genuine forum to come and see some of the smartest people involved in technology talk about issues and problems that are becoming more urgent by the month?
Do members of these communities - that's us - have any responsibility to challenge people who assault others online, create environments in which some of the most urgent issues of our lifetimes can be discussed and debated in a coherent, civil and rational way?
And perhaps most importantly, are people responsible for what they say? Should they be held accountable online, as they are off, for assaultive, hostile communication and other behavior that restricts access, free speech and the free exchange of information and opinion?
The Net is the freest medium in the world. Almost everyone reading this probably hopes it will remain that way, even as it comes under growing pressure from encroaching greedy corporations and government regulators. People ought to be able to post anonymously if they want or need to, even to be hostile.
But ultimately, this is a community, one with important information and expertise the world needs to see, hear, consider and discuss. In this environment, there are conflicting values, and perhaps it's possible to start coming up with possible solutions:
- Innovate. Could sites have "free-fire" zones, areas designated for posters who want absolute freedom, but that others can avoid if they wish?
- Welcome. Sites might establish special areas for newcomers, where they could be welcomed and learn the rules, traditions and language of a community before they wade in as members.
- Establish qualifications for membership. Few freedoms are absolute, off-line or on. Even in the freest society, people don't ignore traffic lights or knock down traffic signs - if they did, others would get injured or killed. Should rights like anonymous postings be qualified, that is offered to preserve anonymous information about companies or government agencies but revoked when they are used as screens for personal or irrelevant attacks?
- More moderation. Require all members to moderate discussions. If members regularly behave abusively or in a hostile way, they can be warned, then suspended or expelled. The consequences for disrupting discussions and for repeated personal and hostile attacks can become more serious than losing posting rights for a few hours. Few functioning communities in the world don't set some conditions for members.
- Members can also moderate more aggressively; individuals can be chosen to lead and guide discussions. People can say whatever they wish as long as they stay on topic; when they veer off into unrelated subjects or personal attacks, they can be reminded, warned once or twice, then booted off. In other words, people can be held responsible for what they say and do.
- Mentor. If most hostile posts come from kids and their freedom to behave irresponsibly or cruelly online is guaranteed - (and it should be) it's the responsibility of the single biggest group of online users - the lurkers - to speak up.
Issues surrounding hostile environments demonstrate the notion of the social and technological trade-off. An entire generation has grown up learning how to communicate viscerally and impulsively, which is both exciting and creative. They also take no responsibility for what they say, and learn to think impulsively and instinctively. If flaming works to force some people to consider their words, it also almost institutionalizes the idea that others don't have to ever consider their words.
The truth is, technology is too important to be left to newspaper reporters, politicians, corporate lobbyists and government regulators. The Net is revolutionizing commerce, culture, education, and soon even politics.
The notion of individual liberty - taken for granted in certain quarters of the Net - is a relatively new idea in the world. Some Enlightenment philosophers and American patriots came up with it, but it's still very much a work-in-progress. The United States, which loves to describe itself as the birthplace of liberty, has lots of problems with the idea. America is one of the most censorious countries in the world, blocking open discussion of many religious and political issues and increasingly deploying a whole industry of censorship technologies - blocking and filtering programs, V-Chips, insanely quixotic and unworkable ratings systems - to try and curb the very freedom it celebrates.
The Net has raised issues relating to freedom to completely new and complex levels, since the Net is the freest medium in American life, and the freest in its history.
Freedom is great, and it's easy to be for it. Hostile environments aren't great. Increasingly, they do a lot of harm. The first website that figures out how to preserve the one while eliminating the other will shroud itself in glory.
Online Gaming (Score:2)
The true growth of a more friendly community is what will eventually make these games great, and I can't help but think that there will be lessons learned there that can be applied to the rest of the Internet in general.
AR Schleicher (Jerrith)
ars@iag.net
Personal responsibility and anonymous posting (Score:1)
Let me sum it up... (Score:1)
The idea of ignoring irresponsible freedom (Score:2)
-russ
p.s. yes it hurts to find out in the concrete that someone doesn't like me; yet I already knew that in the abstract.
I like... (Score:2)
It's the idiots stupid (Score:1)
Slashdot is a sufficently large group, as is Yahoo, Excite, and just about any other discussion site on the Web. It's human nature and its not going to change no matter how much Jon whines about it.
I think Rob and company are doing a good job of keeping
FWIW - I run a very small listserv for about 12 friends - by far the most interesting drbates I get involved with are in the very small group setting...
Oh my word Jon (Score:2)
In either case, everybody that has the capability of viewing 'net material also has the capability of ignoring the bits they find offensive. No, the callous ones are not drowning out the "acceptable to syurupy sweet Jon" good guys.
We have filtering and all sorts of other tools too (maybe that can make the next topic, right after another story about the blind guy). Don't forget, some of us unwashed masses even have brains and we can choose to skip a post if we find it offensive. Jon, free choice does exist, even after AOL/Time, they did not take away my means to scroll or delete or anything else.
If you read something that makes you cry because it hurt your feelings, then too bad.
Hey, newsflash "The Sky is STILL not Falling!!!"
Been there, done that. (Score:5)
The worst kind of flamewar is the flamewar about who should be censored, ejected, etc. If you want to see exactly how bad that can be, check out the conferences (especially the meta conference) at utne [utne.com].
If most hostile posts come from kids and their freedom to behave irresponsibly or cruelly online is guaranteed - (and it should be) it's the responsibility of the single biggest group of online users - the lurkers - to speak up.
This is the absolute worst thing you can do. When kids come trolling, yelling at them just encourages the behavior.
In any case, I really, honestly don't see what the problem is. I read at 1 and rarely see anything truly offensive. I hear people complain about offensive stuff, natalie portman posts and the like, but I rarely see them. (I've only seen the one petrified post that got +3 funny.)
More moderation scares me as there is already a problem of moderators voting their politics.
I suspect that part of the solution is not more moderation, but readers learning not to take offense at things that posted and then moderated down.
Katz: Interactive Object Lesson (Score:2)
Yes! We get the message already. Free Speech CAN get out of hand. Katz is demonstrating how damaging it is to fill up an on-line forum with mind-numbing and inconsequential messages. This is certainly a danger to allowing someone like Katz the power of the free speech.
Can we please get back to News? You know, stuff that matters?
I know, I know, I should just set my preferences to not show articles by Katz. I'll go do that right away...
-Jordan Henderson
Extra Information (Score:3)
Young punks (M and F) don't know jack-sh*t about the world or how to live in it.
Deal with it or be culled in the revolution.
Is "politeness" dead? (Score:2)
What happened? I've always considered myself an individualistic iconoclast, someone who distrusts authority and has his own opinions about everything. Yet it seems my old-fashioned upbringing, at the hand of uneducated but polite old-world parents, has left me with an impatience and, even, disdain towards online flaming and rude language... and by "rude" I mean neither scatological nor profane, but simply disconsiderate of other's opinions and feelings.
Am I an obsolete voice in the wilderness, or what?
Lifecycle of mailing lists (Score:5)
Kat Nagel (KatNagel@eznet.net [mailto]) sent this
terrific piece to the EARLY-M mailing list in December 1994.
Every list seems to go through the same cycle:
how wonderful it is to find kindred souls).
and brainstorm recruitment strategies).
develop, occasional off-topic threads pop up).
information and advice is exchanged; experts help other experts as
well as less experienced colleagues; friendships develop; people tease
each other; newcomers are welcomed with generosity and patience;
everyone -- newbie and expert alike -- feels comfortable asking
questions, suggesting answers, and sharing opinions).
dramatically; not every thread is fascinating to every reader; people
start complaining about the signal-to-noise ratio; person 1 threatens
to quit if *other* people don't limit discussion to person 1's pet
topic; person 2 agrees with person 1; person 3 tells 1 & 2 to lighten
up; more bandwidth is wasted complaining about off-topic threads than
is used for the threads themselves; everyone gets annoyed).
an 'old' question or responds with humor to a serious post; newbies
are rebuffed; traffic drops to a doze-producing level of a few minor
issues; all interesting discussions happen by private email and are
limited to a few participants; the purists spend lots of time
self-righteously congratulating each other on keeping off-topic
threads off the list).
OR
stay near stage 4, with stage 5 popping up briefly every few weeks;
many people wear out their second or third 'delete' key, but the list
lives contentedly ever after).
LetterJ
Jon Katz, you're so full of ***, no offence! (Score:4)
Jon Katz, why do you keep on writing these articles about hostility on the Internet. They are NOT well received. I'd like to, if I may, point out some facts:
The Internet is in most respects genderless. I have no idea whether any of the posters on Slashdot are female, or if they are white or black or Asian. How can I discriminate when I don't have anything at all to go upon?
Hostility, as I pointed out in a previous comment, is found in the real world in the same proportions as it is on f.e. Slashdot. It's there, it's part of human life, and I don't want to miss it. I like hearing EVERYTHING that EVERYONE has to say about the topic at hand, not just someone like you, who posts goodie-goodie Mr. Niceguy articles.
Your suggestion that there should be an introduction area for new users is absolutely ridiculous. There IS nothing to learn. You read, you post or you don't. It is the job of the newcomer to adapt to his enviroment, not vice versa.
I was offended, and yes, I mean offended, by your suggestion that anonymous posts be restricted. Already, anonymous posts start with the rating 0, which I find bad enough. But banning people from posting anonymously will inevitably stifle freedom of speech and, as you so masterfully put it, prevent some people from posting, for fear of retribution (flame, hate mail) on hand of irate Slashdot readers.
Slashdot is a community, and all those within the community have rights, even the jerks. It's a fine line between freedom and law, but I find your ideas somewhat fascist.
Katz, please keep in mind that your fancy, overly dramatic phrases and your excellent use of the English language may earn you respect from some Slashdotters, but not from others. I hope there are enough people with sense here on
Re:The idea of ignoring irresponsible freedom (Score:3)
and then i quit reading. i'm not on
think before you type. i agree with what russ had to say, but cripes people, you don't have to belittle someone to embiggen yourself.
- paul
An interesting theory... (Score:5)
It seems abusrd at first, but if you think about it, it does start to make sense. Maybe the moderation threshold would have to be increased... but the moderators would need not spend their points on taking out the kiddies. The kiddies would stay there - but the overall average score of the articles would rise, and the kiddies' posts would be left below it.
Not only that, but no added moderation pounts would be needed if the amount of kids doubled overnight. Right now, if the number of kiddie posts doubles, there would either have to be more moderation points issued, or the StN ratio would fall significantly. But with the proposed system, if the amount of lame posts increases while the amount of good posts stays the same, very little would change.
Think about it... sounds good?
--
What problem? (Score:2)
I don't see massive flame-wars on slashdot for the most part. People need not be afraid of posting their opinions to slashdot as long as they are well-considered and intelligent - such commentary is almost always well recieved.
Can someone give me an example of the problem here on slashdot? Jon?
-josh
SoapBox (Score:4)
One article is enough, and the discussion thereof should have been sufficient - true, there are many Loud Skript Kiddies who just shout abuse, however, actually having your own soapbox on
I know this detracts from the issue you're bringing up, but you are encouraging it by doing it this way.
.my 2p
Frightening away women. (Score:3)
In fact, being online _removes_ the ExtraX factor which one has in real life, where the rude, psychotic or unpleasant people know who you are, and the physical differences between the genders become more relevant. If I meet a weirdo in a bar, I may take a taxi home rather than walking. If I meet a weirdo on Slashdot, I can ignore them completely.
Perhaps I am unusual - certainly as a programmer I am not a typical woman, and I would be really interested in anyone who _does_ feel that their gender affects their participation in online discussion forums like this. It would be nice to have some reliable data on the participation of women, whether they post, or lurk, more or less than men. They would have to be matched for their technical knowledge, since it seems quite likely that being less computer literate _would_ put you off posting for fear of looking like an idiot. Has anyone seen anything like this?
Another interesting thing would be to look at these sort of statistics for newsgroups on sewing or child-rearing or anywhere that one might expect women to have equal or better subject knowledge.
Katz just doesn't get it. (Score:2)
Nor will it Jon. The Internet is about free exchange of ideas - true information freedom. Along with this baby we got it's dirty diapers - this doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Online, we lack several things that prevent us from being rude in person - accountability does not exist online. This allows us to be loose and free in what we say, more so than we would face to face with another human being. On a deep deep level, we're all afraid to insult someone like this face to face for one reason: FEAR. Fear of reprisal, fear of loss of credibility and respect, hell - fear of getting physically smacked for being an idiot in some cases! We don't have these fears online, and it shows in our missives! This is not indicative of some new culture of angry flamers, it's indicative of HUMAN NATURE when certain restraints on our behavior are lifted.
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
Re:Online Gaming (Score:2)
Take another example - the games over on http://games.eesite.com - where in order to get anywhere in the rankings, you HAVE to cheat. In fact it's expected that you will cheat if you want to be ranked in the top slots. If you post to their message boards about it, you get flamed by the entrenched for having a problem with it.
The siteadmins can't do anything about it - it seems the more holes they patch, the more dilligent the cheaters become, and they get to cheat anyway.
So, legitimate players looking for a good game get pissed off with the system, and go elsewhere.
The other problem, which is more prevalent in games such as UO and EverQuest - is that once the game has started and gotten a decent following, that it is INSANELY tough for a new player who doesn't want to quit their job and spend horrendous ammounts of cash to play all the time, to get anywhere - sure, you might find a few other people in the same situation, and have a decent time until some L25 PK'er comes and mops the floor with your L2 party because they had a rough day.
Cheating, PKing, and pay-for-play are the three big problems with online gaming communities right now. Cheating isn't going to go away. The more they try to stop it, the more vigilant the cheaters will become. PKing can be removed from such online RPGs, but many players (myself included) would feel that it does remove some of the depth of those games (although some sort of limiter on high-level PK'ers attacking newbies should be made). Pay-for-play will remain until it's no longer profitable for the game companies to do things that way. As long as people are willing to rack up $100 a month in UO charges (I know 5 people for whom this is a LOW figure), Origin will be more than willing to take their cash. (You'd think with all that cash they could've spent a bit more time debugging Ascension though...)
/rant
Re:The idea of ignoring irresponsible freedom (Score:2)
Hmmm... does Slashdot need to offer users personal killfiles? So we can eliminate from our view the posts from people who bother us continually?
---
An example (Score:5)
Now this is exactly the sort of behavior Katz is complaining about. But, as you can see, the moderation system quickly took care of things. Anyone reading at 1 (Which is the default, isn't it?) would have to go out of their way to even know of such a post's existence. I know that I certainly never saw it, reading this topic around five minutes after it was posted.
So what's to complain about? Well, I suspect that the real complaint is that the post exists at all. This is natural. No one wants something like the above posted about them, even if no one sees it. But what really upsets us, even if we don't realize it, is not that it is posted, but that someone feels that way about us. But keeping it freeing being posted doesn't stop the poster from feeling the way they do, so why bother?
It is not like anyone is going to read that post, and say "Well, I used to like Katz a lot, but know that I see that some AC thinks his stuff is not worth reading, I won't bother to read the next Hellmouth essay". Not likely. More likely is that someone will read that and think "Another moron AC post".
Moderation does a damn good job of keeping us readers from having to see this stuff. As long as we readers don't need to be bothered with crap like that, I really don't think it matters. Going beyond that is just counterproductive.
Fearsome? (Score:2)
Ever heard the phrase "Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me?" To me, the idea that a flame is "fearsome" is outright laughable. Think about it.
For the very SAME reasons that you outline that allow someone to post stuff they wouldn't normally say in public are the EXACT same reasons that they are extremely easy to ignore. Fearsome? I think not. In order for someone to garner true fear, they need to have significant power over your life. Name one way that these ACs do this. Just one. You can't - because they have NO POWER over you - except that which you give them. It's that simple.
I think the real problem is that people give lip service to "free speech", but when they see something they don't like, their natural instinct is to silence the source. Instead, look at what the person has to say and judge that on its own merits. Soon, you don't even feel the need to silence idiotic speech.
Take Rocker, for example. He expressed his opinion. Everyone calls for his head, and perhaps baseball should fine him - but ONLY because they are in the entertainment business, and his comments could decrease BUSINESS. But look at what he said. What is so scary about those ideas? I look at that and say - hey, there's a guy expressing free speech, and look at how stupid and shallow his thoughts are. And I dismiss it, just like that.
That's free speech, not some touchy-feely PC world where speech is allowed as long as no one gets their feelings hurt.
Women have a right to speak publicly; so do older people, foreigners, newcomers, newbies.
Katz, look at the implications you make with this sentence and the ones following it. You make the presumption that these groups are inherently emotionally weaker than "technologically skilled young white men". You imply that they are so emotionally fragile that reading about Natalie Portman's petrified beowulf cluster will instill fear into them. That's just down right laughable, and I see it as such. But it's your opinion.
John Katz: Legalized Troll (Score:4)
2) Evokes massive flames from the community
3) The more attention he gets, the more he seems to post (to the point of posting about the attention he gets)
As a fellow troll, Jon, I'd like to point out that you should expect "please die" messages. I get them all the time. It's not good form to post a troll about responses to your trolls. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen!
May I also make a suggestion: creative, amusing trolls are easier on the eyes than these long verbal defications.
As a troll, you should be more considerate of the rights of everyone else to flame, troll, or post legitimately. Not all of us have infinite karma.
I propose a karma tax. Where we skim percentages of karma off of the richest karma holders of slashdot and redistribute to the less wealthy. This will alleviate much frustration and curb the flames aimed at people like Jon Katz.
thank you.
posting with -7 karma, for your viewing pleasure!
Its about responsibility (Score:2)
Inane comments, posted by anonymous cowards, are just a demonstration of immaturity and an unwillingness to take reponsibility.
On the other hand, I don't think the system should be changed at all. Let it be. The AC's posting inane, pointless and offtopic messages are excercising their right to be heard in a free communications medium.
Some of us may not like it, but we aren't being asked to like it. We are just being asked to tolerate it. I've never posted anonymously here, never flamed, never posted offtopically, and I don't intend to. What I have to say is what I have to say. If someone decides I need to be flamed into a little hole in the ground, so be it. I can take it.
Jon, have you actually talked to a lot of women about this? Some leave because this level of immaturity turns them off something they might otherwise be interested in, but lots just stick it out. Don't underestimate the femme-geeks.
Sakhmet.
"When I want to do something mindless to relax, I reinstall Windows 95."
I hate to tell you, but... (Score:3)
To be the bearer of bad news, the barrage of protest, criticism and ridicule is exactly what many flamers/trollers are looking for. Telling some kid he's being a jerk for posting such messages isn't gonna make h[im|er] think "Hmm... maybe I *have* been hurting other people's feelings or sense of (pick your favorite psychobabble term). I should step back and change my ways." The only thing it does is to encourage them to post more flames/trolls.
As many people have pointed out, the only way to make them go away is to ignore them. It may not work, but takes far less effort than reacting to it. (Read this as browse comments at threshhold of +1 or +2.)
Eric
Re:The idea of ignoring irresponsible freedom (Score:2)
Re:Extra Information (Score:3)
Point is, there are intelligent 14 year olds and idiotic 35 year old sysadmins, and everything else everywhere.
Local free speech is not worthwhile. (Score:2)
Slashdot is doing just fine the way it is (except for the top-level posts, which honestly seem to be becoming trolls for the purpose of generating ad revenue). We are dealing with trolls and offtopic posts in precisely the correct manner: ignoring them and helping each other to ignore them efficiently (while a significant minority checks for abuses of the mechanism for this).
Free, anonymous speech in the big picture is worthwhile. I hope there will always be public forums where anyone can speak their mind and never face consequences. But it is perfectly acceptable to have private forums with enforced topics and rules.
BTW, I find it very amusing to hear all this from the guy who said he'll never use "shut up software".
Re:Extra Information (Score:2)
Preserving the Freedom to Preach from above... (Score:2)
The first article in this "series" contained a very enlightened post by someone (which was quickly moderated to the top) saying that the main reason Katz is flamed is because he preaches rather than takes part in the discussion, and that he never seems to notice the hundreds of insightful comments made after every one of his posts.
And, lo and behold, he has now gotten to the third installment of this pulpet marathon, and I have heard nothing from him about this. Katz doesn't even seem to acknowledge that although he loves to use himself and the Slashdot community as an example, he has never even made an effort (save one article about trying to install Linux) to be PART of the Slashdot community.
People do not flame because they are sexually understimulated or beat up in school or whatever theory I can't bring myself to care that Katz believes in, but they do so to get attention. If you behave like a higher power, never talking to, but rather at, others, of course you will flamed because you show that that is what is necessary to get your attention.
I have posted several hundred comments to this forum, and probably gotten as many replies and moderator points (for better or worse). Yet I cannot bring myself to recall EVER being flamed here. Not once. The only people who I see getting flamed here are the really dominant seminal posters like Signal11, but even then it is rather mild.
What makes you think, Jon Katz, that the "women and old people" that you prejudicely assume break down when insulted, are going to come into a community and start preaching at it from above, rather than starting by lurking, and then posting "from below" so to speak, as ten years of practice in netiquette have taught me is the right technique? Maybe you should look at yourself to see where the flaming problem begins, and not follow the philosophy of always blaming others so entrenched in the world about which you love to preach...
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Anything but a hostile environment... (Score:5)
I read and post to slashdot because its entire perview is anything but narrow or hostile. Options are present for me to filter out the information I regard as useless. Sometimes I post and get high karma. Sometimes I don't. It happens.
Time and time again I read about an issue on slashdot and find the User Comments more valuable than the post. An item on wearable computing might lead to a post by someone who actually makes them, and links to more information. My interest in technology and culture finds this site the perfect compliment to these curiosities, despite some people insisting that slashdot's focus should be more narrow.
However, I cannot help but feel Mr. Katz' recent articles are written only in reaction to the amount of negative posts he generates here. I do not understand this three part series' point whatsoever - the main criticism I find levelled at Katz by my friends who are literate, polite, non flaming linux users is that being a cultural person he is more interested in buzzwords than content - driving an issue based on its importance rather than providing any real insight - something I do not agree with completely but understand, and wish them to be able to express that opinion. I do not sit here flaming anonymously, but as myself.
I am a minority. I am non white. My mother was an immigrant from a low tech country to the U.S. I am not a coder. My expertise is in an analog tech format (filmmaking). I am everything that katz has suggested online communities are - but I am not a dangerous, hostile adolescent who uses the Net for juvenile vitriol.
I've found this community and many others on the net all the same - there are minorities and, yes, women present - as computing becomes more ubiquitious it will become even more diverse. There are flamers, and there are intelligent posters, and trolls. There is highly valuable news and some which is worthless to myself or others. At the end of the day, as the reader, I make slashdot to be my own - taking what I need and is important from it.
I don't see why this model is so deprecative to society, as Mr. Katz would have it. Anybody else feel like me despite the lunacy and annoyance that every Jeff K [somethingawful.com] on the net generates, there is something more profound, just waiting for you to find it, instead of a hierarchy deciding it for us.
And just to keep it in one comment, I'd like to know what Mr. Katz would like to say to us slashdotters about the fact that he has sold his book to a company that will soon be owned (more than likely) by AOL - (Fine Line pictures is owned by Time Warner). Within his dealings of a traditional media hierarchy, does he not expect any influence from corporate control - as opposed to the freedom afforded us in this forum?
Take a pill, Jon! (Score:2)
Jeez, how things change. When Katz first appeared on Slashdot, I was sure that his participation would be a Good Thing -- I used to like most of his HotWired columns, and he seemed like a decent enough guy with some interesting things to say. But like I said -- whoa, do things change.
This article has got to be one of the most self-absorbed things I've ever read. It is nothing but one long boo-hoo about how rough and tumble Slashdot is, and how hard it is for "outsiders" to participate. Now, Katz very PC-ly starts off identifying "outsiders" as women and people of color, but instead of addressing actual ways in which the Slashdot community marginalizes these folks (which would have been a valuable discussion to have), he quickly veers off instead into a discussion of how Slashdot marginalizes him! It's like Katz is that guy from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, screaming "'elp! 'elp! I'm being repressed!"
The whole article can be summarized as follows: "I like the idea of Slashdot, but it is too focused on this technology stuff instead of stuff I'm interested in. And whenever I try to make Slashdot into what I want it to be, rather than what the community wants it to be, people flame me. This community should be open to anyone, even people who have no interest in the subjects under discussion. Boo-hoo."
Jon, I have news for you. Slashdot works. I've been participating in online communities since 1985, and Slashdot is one of maybe three or four I've encountered that gets it right. Discussions too rowdy for you? Browse at +1 or +2 -- I do this and it's amazing how little junk you find at that setting. Don't like a topic area? Filter it out in your Preferences. And if you're a good citizen, your Karma goes up and you get recognition and responsibility. Slashdot works amazingly well given the constraints it operates under. (Not to mention that if you think this is a free-fire zone, you've clearly never spent any time on Usenet.) The cream rises to the top of the discussions, and the stupid juvenile stuff stays at the bottom, easily filtered out. This is how Things Should Be!
The biggest problem here isn't Slashdot, Jon -- it's your expectations of what Slashdot should be. Here's an idea -- rather than sitting on an ivory perch posting articles about how much Slashdot needs "fixing", why don't you swear off your columns for a month and come participate, by posting in the discussions. Build up your Karma, take a few hits, and be a part of the community for a change, rather than wagging your finger at us for not living up to what you think we should be. I think that if you actually used Slashdot rather than just philosophizing about it, you'd be pleasantly surprised. On the other hand, you could just dismiss my post as another useless rant from someone who is out to flame poor Katz. Anyone want to place bets on which option he'll take?
-- Jason A. Lefkowitz
Re:An example (Score:3)
And yes, I know I can set my prefs to screen out Katz. I find that very option vaguely creepy, along with comment thresholds. For me, they end up being counterproductive, since as soon as I set a comment threshold, I'm curious as to what the AC's said that got them moderated to the bottom of the list. So I invariably end up reading the "hidden" posts anyway. Maybe it's just a personal problem.
And as for why I still read Katz, I can't quite explain that either. Part of it is I still keep expecting him to write something worthwhile, and I'd rather not miss it. Part of it is just a fascination at the sheer gall of the guy, and the nuts it must take to step up to the plate and spout the classic (as someone else put it) "northern white male liberal" Party Line. It's fascinating in the same way that Brad Pitt's character in Kalifornia (sort of an uber-white-trash archetype) was fascinating, as a kind of reductio ad absurdum of a particular stereotype. I read Katz, or watch the movie, and I ponder the questions:
- Do they know they're a walking, talking, living stereotype?
- Do they have deeper thoughts that they're afraid or unwilling to share, or is this really all there is?
- Are they capable of stepping outside their own view and looking at the issue from that of someone radically different from them? For example (in the case of Katz) a white supremacist? Or a m4d Haxx0r flaming sKript Kiddee?
It's kind of an anthropological curiosity, I guess. This turned out to be way too long-winded. Oh well. Take it for what it's worth"Moderation is good, in theory."
-Larry Wall
Re:Extra Information (Score:4)
Of course, all the honest people will say exactly what they are, but all the people that know that they don't know jack will just be able to say that they're 35 year old Sys admins, 45 yr old DBA's, etc....
Next, you'll want posting of IP's or subnets... Make it easier to ignore people from AOL. Of course, that removes the ability to post annonymously, which is what freedom of speech is all about.
(That blurb came from a 24 year old consultant)
to everyone who hates Katz: (Score:2)
Really, isn't it a total waste of your (and everybody else's) time to post a message complaining about him when you can just block him from your slashdot display?
Katz is a windbag (Score:3)
Anyhow, I think people make way too big a deal of the occasional flame war. I am reminded of the kids' saying: sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
If I post an opinion and someone makes a post degrading my intelligence and my parentage, so what? I'll ignore that post and concentrate on the constructive ones. It usually isn't that much of a time-waster. You can usually spot a troll-post by reading the first couple of sentences.
I also have to question the line about
More importantly, Katz seems to be forgetting that the
This is not to say that this is a good thing. But Rob is hardly in the position to change the makeup of an entire industry. And it would be a terrible thing for him to water down the site's content to attract non-technical users. One of
So, I think Jon Katz needs to keep in mind that what goes on here is only words, and that a mainly-white, mainly-male community isn't the end of the world.
Re:Jon Katz, you're so full of ***, no offence! (Score:2)
That's all well and good - I love reading opposing viewpoints. It's refreshing and potentially enlightening.
But what redeeming value do "Petrified Natalie Portman w/ hot grits & whipped cream" posts have with any discussion - other than ones about non-standard sexual preferences (the petrified thing - not Natalie Portman!) or about NP herself. None, really. It's a waste of resources, in reference to bandwidth, Slashdot disk space, and my time.
Unfortunately, the only real remedy is to browse at +1 or even +2. This requires trust in the moderators and moderation system - and more often than not, they seem to be doing a good job. Every once in a while I take my time reading posts, and I usually agree with the moderation totals. I'm often too busy to wade thru the crap, tho...
Is there a better way to discourage non-constructive (ie, stupid and witless) flaming? And to scrap those damned waste-of-bandwidth petrified Natalie Portman and similar posts? I don't know. The only fair option is to simply hope that these people grow up.
Cheers,
Brian
Comment removed (Score:3)
The problem with valid but unpopular opinions. (Score:2)
The probelm with this idea is that I could see it easily destroying the diversity of discussion. To explain : I notice on some of the more politically charged threads that there will often be a decidedly majority view and a well defended but less populous miority view. (not to imply that the majority view is badly defended, but I think when you are in the minority you are less likely to throw out an off the cuff comment, because there may not be anyone to fill out the details and do it better.) There's nothing wrong with this under the current moderation standard, because the unpopular opinions are not moderated down simply because the moderater doesn't agree with it. So cruising at 0 or even 1 will still give you an even view of the discussion while eliminating the worst of the trolls.
Now consider what happens if there is no moderating down. Moderaters on /. do sometimes moderate posts up based largely on agreement. (note, I'm not saying this is the only reason post gets moderated up, but it does happen.) The majority of the mods are likely to hold the same general opinion as the majority of the posters. So well written posts on the majority opinion are likely to be moderated up far more often than equally well written posts on the minority opinion. Its just the way human nature works. Moderation is bound to be part "that was very informative and helped define the discussion" and part "you said it man!"
Where does that leave us in a up only moderation? I suspect it would leave us with a largely homogeneous group of readable posts at the upper level, and a more full but also more troll infested debate at the bottom. I think the current system of up and down with the commonly accepted idea that you don't mod down on opinion gives us a much better discussion forum.
Re:Jon Katz, you're so full of ***, no offence! (Score:2)
Yeah, unless you identify yourself. Then it's possible to face discrimination.
Then why identify yourself?
Because it's who you are. Why hide it?
Your suggestion that there should be an introduction area for new users is absolutely ridiculous. There IS nothing to learn. You read, you post or you don't. It is the job of the newcomer to adapt to his enviroment, not vice versa.
Yeah, god forbid people learn how to do it properly and intelligently first - God forbid that actually -increases- the quality of discussion.
-Noiz,
Who thinks that helping newbies makes for a better community.
---------
Re:Katz's atheist prejudices are showing again. (Score:3)
Katz has shown his anti-Christian leanings numerous times in the past. I've been forced several times to write letters to Christian groups and articles for Christian websites about some of Katz's more insulting, distasteful articles, and it looks like that time ago. Sorry, JonKatz, but there *ARE* reasons not to like you, and I've just exposed one of them.
Forced? Someone put a gun to your head? I've got nothing against advocacy, but are you trying to call down a Christian hit squad on Katz or something?
I suggest that you either not read Katz' articles (there's even a setting to disable them, as well as any other of the Slashdot crew's postings) or grow some thicker skin.
That said, I'm really not all that worried about the inclusiveness of Slashdot. If some opinion or belief that you hold is different than that of the majority of the users here, so what? So you post something, and a lot of people disagree with you and post something to that effect, where is the harm in this? It may get annoying to have people tell you you're smoking crack when you say you actually like Cyrix CPU's or Winmodems, but maybe they'll point out a reason that will change your mind about something, or show you what they're thinking so that you can respond with more evidence supporting your position.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you're guaranteed your speech will be popular, or that people will like you. It means that no one is preventing you from speaking your piece. I've yet to see a single well-thought out and rational disagreement with Linux, Atheism, Microsoft, Natalie Portman, Grits, or anything else moderated down unfairly.
To Summarize, make a rational statement, hope for rational replies. Try to learn something, don't use the soap box to preach from, use it to teach from, and try to learn from the others who are standing on it.
---
Taking responsibility (Score:2)
Jon, we live in a culture that exalts irresponsibility and "do your own thing, screw everyone else." Why are you shocked that this carries over into online conversations?
It depends on the audience (Score:2)
The Scarlet Pimpernel
Exactly (Score:3)
Do they have deeper thoughts that they're afraid or unwilling to share, or is this really all there is?
To continue the anthropological discussion, this has to do with the difference between the journalistic attitude and the attitude of the rest of us. Most of us would only think to put pen to paper if we thought of something interesting, informative or whatnot. (We could be wrong, of course, but that's the breaks.) Journalists are trained to write about something even when they don't necessarily have an interesting opinion, or something new to say. They've got to have something out regardless.
If you took most of us, sat us down once a week, and said "write an interesting essay by tomorrow", most of us would have a hard time doing much better than Katz. We'd tend to make mountains out of molehills, or overstate the obvious just to get something out. Fortunately, we have the choice to not write, so we don't do that. Someone who wants to be a "journalist" or an "essayist" doesn't have that choice. They've got to produce. And very, very few have the talent to produce something truly interesting day in, day out.
Re:Katz's atheist prejudices are showing again. (Score:2)
I read the article. I didn't see where he bashed anything relating to religion. I haven't seen anywhere else where Katz has bashed religion, either, although I've skipped a bit of his later stuff...
I don't know where Laser Brains up there gets his delusions, but just because he doesn't post a bible verse with every article doesn't mean Katz is out for your immortal soul, nor is he deserving of this kind of b.s. Katz may be half a bubble off plumb, but he's no demon. Far from it, he's definitely in the fuzzy bunnies and sweetness and light crowd.
Actually, come to think of it, that kind of stuff needs to be moderated up... and "exposed" for what it is. I should compile a book of same, and stick it over here on the shelf with Mein Kampf and my Orwell collection. The kinds of things that make you have nightmares.
There are WAY too many people in this world who profess christianity but have no idea who Joshua ben Joseph of Nazereth was or what he stood for. I think the world would be a better place if just a few of them got on the stick and figured that out.
Never Again the Burning
What resources? (Score:2)
Slashdot is now a commercial site and is more than capable of devoting the resources to manage the burden, and besides, the management probably likes the current system, since every crap post is an additional two ad impressions (composing the comment and verifying the submission).
There is no way to discourage those posts, so stop hoping. Censorship by content is never implementable without bias, and it's never desirable. There are idiots in this world, and it's often too hard to resist trying to silence others without realizing that one's own idiocy. Tempt not yourself into creating a system where "one more judgment, and I am undone".
the way things have always been (Score:2)
Real life isn't much different, and I think most people would agree. The anonymous factor drops it to another level, but being insulted online isn't *always* as bad as real life insults, arguments, etc. As we are all humans, flames, trolls, and irrational comments are going to be part of any "online community". Thats just the way it is. We simply need to learn how to deal with them, and not let them affect the good discussions that are going on.
It makes no sense to construct and maintain commercial websites that exclude most of humanity
I'd agree, but that is exactly the way things are. You mentioned commercial sites here, which I don't consider online communities. Most of the earth's population is excluded from internet use, most of the continent of Africa doesn't even have enough money for food, much less education, transporation, electricity, or computers. Why would web sites be targeted at people who don't even have computers? They don't have money to buy your products.
Don't get me wrong, the internet is great, but in the present it helps exasperates the have's and the have not's as far as education, which polarizes opportunity, and polarizes wealth concentration as well. There are plenty of other factors as well, the internet is a minor one.
In the off-line world, mutual benefit is the core of community. Real people provide help, entertainment, commerce, religion, companionship - the concrete benefits of which keep the community going and sustain its members. Online, especially on technical sites, the primary benefit is information - news, software, hardware, cultural trends and information. Since there is no physical proximity (although gatherings of members often do meet in different cities), it's possible for members to benefit from this information without reciprocating - or even communicating.
Again, I don't think real life is all that different. Simply extracting information from an online site without reciprocating doesn't harm the community. There are plenty of websites with people who help each other, and even if the communication is mostly one-way, at least the information can help those that need it. The internet is still new, people are still learning how to configure web sites for online communities. It takes time.
the John Rocker Syndrome
This is a cultural problem. It shows itself as it does any other place when working with a site such as slashdot. I'd have to say things have improved greatly in this country over the past 100 years. If "online communities" take the lead in this (tolerance/understanding) that would be great, but I don't expect it.
Do the people running websites have any responsibility for creating environments which are truly free, and not dominated by the most hostile members? Should we be concerned that entire social groups - women, newcomers - don't feel welcome here?
Most people on this site would call me a socialist (in favor of a welfare state) but I don't want to call for politically correct measures online, because that means regulation. I don't want the internet to be regulated unless people have a serious ability to impede my personal freedom, and I don't see the internet as much of a threat compared to "real life". The internet is too new for anyone to take control now.
Re:Katz's atheist prejudices are showing again. (Score:2)
Meta-Self-Moderation. (Score:2)
I believe the theory that the trolls are just kids. They want attention (or like breaking windows and kicking cats, whatever) and use
The only thing that trolls really affect is moderation points, which is why a previos poster suggested that posts only be moderated up, and never down. That why the good stuff will rise, and no one wastes moderater points on lonely kids with nothing better to do. Or the first post weenies.
To test the lonely kids theory, let's try this: The last line of your post should be your age and what you do. You sacrifice some anonymity, but we will all see who the posers are.
To top all of this garbage off, why is it that Jon Katz' stories have the highest percentage of posts that don't make it to 1? I don't think he is so awful to deserve flaming every time he writes something. Occasionally, maybe, but every single time? Rarely (IIRC) does his threads have a higher than 3:1 signal/noise ratio, far below the average of the rest of
I'm 24. I am a web designer with coldfusion, java, and some perl. I also suffer through help desk.
If you don't have something nice to say... (Score:2)
I do not feel that slashdot prevents anyone, regardless of gender/race/age from posting. Knowledge level would seem to be the most limiting factor here. Maybe in today's society, the old maxim should read "If you don't have something intelligent to say..." However, that determination should be made by the poster, not by slashdot. Free speech includes inane, off-topic comments, whether we like that or not, and the 'net is the one place where people can fully use free speech. I am certain that people say things here that they would never say in the "real world", but isn't that the whole point?
Long response... (Score:2)
Let's start at the very beginning:
"The Internet has provided individuals with more freedom than they have ever had to express themselves.
Maybe so. I'm not sure it's a given, though.
"But not surprisingly, many people are abusing, thus endangering, their new power.
Many??! How about some, Jon? Or a very few?
Sure as hell aren't _many_ people abusing their power.
Besides, if this abuse is endangering their new power, then surely that implies that some sort of cause and effect is in place?
"The idea of taking responsibility for one's words has not taken hold."
Sure it has! The necessary responsibility online is less than in real life, because physical threats aren't an issue online. (NB: If a threat online implies physical violence, then it _leaves_ the exclusively online world and becomes a different issue) As a result, the consequences of responsibility are appropriately lessened. Jail is not appropriate for flamers and trolls. Being moderated down (on
"It makes no sense to construct and maintain commercial websites that exclude most of humanity, or punish them when they try to join communal discussions. Women have a right to speak publicly; so do older people, foreigners, newcomers, newbies."
Of course not! (Actually it occasionally does--looked at any porn sites lately?
Remember, "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog." Or a woman. Or an old person. Or a foreigner (unless their command of the language in use is bad, and there seems to be a fairly high degree of tolerance for that). Or a newcomer.
But, if someone comes into a generic discussion and tries to remake it into their own by saying, "I am a woman, we will now discuss how this pertains to women;" or, "I am a senior, why aren't you talking about how this related to seniors?;" then they get what they deserve. Similarly for newbies. Remember the term originated as meaning a newcomer who didn't bother to read the ground rules or find out how things actually worked.
"Should we be concerned that entire social groups - women, newcomers - don't feel welcome here?"
Well of course, if that were the case. I don't see it, though. I regularly find that women consider the 'net to be far more liberating and welcoming than the old boys clubs of real life.
"And perhaps most importantly, are people responsible for what they say? Should they be held accountable online, as they are off, for assaultive, hostile communication and other behavior that restricts access, free speech and the free exchange of information and opinion?"
In order; Yes, they are, yes they should, and assaultive [sic] communication doesn't restrict any freedoms except for those of the assaulter.
Let's go through this in detail. Someone, let's call her Jane, posts something indicating her gender. Someone else, John, calls her a snivelling feminist bitch. Jane gets upset and contacts John's service provider. Now the questions for the reader are:
1) Who has lost any freedoms?
2) Who is being held responsible for their actions?
Bonus) Essay question: Why is there any assumed implication of freedom for anyone online?
The point is: LIFE IS HOSTILE! People are hostile! Life online may be _slightly_ more verbally hostile than real life, but this is a result of people not being able to threaten physical harm. Without that threat, people can more easily ignore flames and 'abuse.'
Finally, two minor points:
"America is one of the most censorious countries in the world, blocking open discussion of many religious and political issues and increasingly deploying a whole industry of censorship technologies - blocking and filtering programs, V-Chips, insanely quixotic and unworkable ratings systems - to try and curb the very freedom it celebrates."
This is just so much bullshit. It's a sign of freedom that whenever the state suggests curbing that freedom, people jump up and down about censorship, etc. If they were REALLY censorious, then you wouldn't be able to complain about it. You'd either not know that the censorship existed, or you'd be dead.
Also...
"the Net is the freest medium in American life, and the freest in its history."
I got to this point of the article, and suddenly realised that as a Canadian, this article wasn't written about me. How exclusive! How appalling to cut out the entire population of the world, except for one moderately sized (population-wise)country!
Oh, isn't that what we were doing to women, old people, newbies, and foreigners a few paragraphs ago?
Sheesh Jon, get a grip. Better yet, get a backbone. If you're going to get PAID to write dreck like this, expect people to take issue with you. Especially, people who have far more intelligent things to say, but aren't being paid for it.
Not hypocrisy (Score:2)
And there's also nothing absolutely wrong with mere arrogance and insult -- they often provide some of the best entertainment in some views. What too many posters here forget is that different people interact in this forum with different purposes. Some are here for the news (although I can't imagine why, since most of these stories come over the AP bulletins days in advance). Some come for the insightful rantings of others. Some come for the humorous rantings of others. Some come to blow off steam with other nerds. It is not your prerogative to declare some of these motives orthodox and others verboten. Just be grateful that Rob and friends have set up a system that enforces the general orthodox views of the populace at large (which seem to agree with your own views).
Re:Katz's atheist prejudices are showing again. (Score:2)
Class Deity {
float God
float Jesus }
Of course, God.Creation declares everything while Jesus.Resurrect restarts the application after seven days and seven nights. I'm toying with the Human class using Human.Adam and Human.Eve but since I'm on an Apple, things keep getting out of control when I introduce the Reptile.Snake variable.
Thank you for showing me how religion and computers go hand in hand.
Re:Exactly (Score:2)
As Cartman might say, this is hella true. Witness, for example, some of the weaker attempts at humor on my site. Sitting down and writing something that might be worth someone else's time to read, under any circumstances, is hard. Under a deadline, it's waaaay hard. And who the hell knows if it even ended up being worth the effort you spent on it? I, personally, would love to have Katz-level feedback, even if much of it was negative.
BUT. So, assume Katz has to sit down and write something for tomorrow's /. What to do? What's his thought process? He seems to earnestly believe that he's saying important things that need to be said. That he and he alone is a voice of sanity and cool, analytical savvy. Is it all just a put-on? Is it the pressure of the deadline, and the easy way out? Or does Katz write to the dictates of his soul (such as it may be)?
Personally, if I had to take a stand on "freedom of speech, and the web" and I had to have my stand expounded upon by tomorrow, I'd at least try to be thought-provoking. I can only assume that Katz would try to be as well. So the conclusion there is that Katz is, or can be, an extrordinarily shallow thinker.
I'd rather not believe this, so the other conclusion is that he's just relatively lazy, and rather than try out an unpopular stand, or attempt to push the analysis to a level beyond what we all already know, he merely recycles common knowledge using big words, in the finest tradition of pop sociology worldwide.
Which is it? Who knows. Maybe I'll try writing a 1500-word essay on "Freedom of Speech, and Flamage on the Net" by tomorrow, and see what I can come up with. It'd be an interesting experiment, anyway, and one that I doubt many people here have tried. :-)
"Moderation is good, in theory."
-Larry Wall
Re:What resources? (Score:2)
True - /. is commercial now, and can handle that crap. But it still wastes my time. Not much of it, maybe, but all those NP posts are wasteful. Does it hurt me? No. Does it take longer... well, if I had a cable modem, I probably wouldn't care at all - but I have a 33.6K, and I'm dialing up at university, which means horrid busy signals.
There is no way to discourage those posts, so stop hoping. Censorship by content is never implementable without bias, and it's never desirable. There are idiots in this world, and it's often too hard to resist trying to silence others without realizing that one's own idiocy. Tempt not yourself into creating a system where "one more judgment, and I am undone".
I'm certainly not advocating censorship. Most certainly not thru any "legislation" by /.
Different online communities - as I'm sure you know - have different flavors. What is acceptable or not will vary from community to community. Typically, the biggest trouble makers are newbies who don't take the time to learn the "flavor" of that community - but they can (and do, usually) learn to come in line with the attitudes of the rest of the community.
It really boils down to "policing" (I don't like that term) by social pressure. Encourage constructive posts. Make people feel a part of the community, so they will want to maintain and enhance the quality of that community thru active, constructive, discussions. This has nothing to do with opinion or position, mind you. Just topic & relevancy, and usefullness of the post (does it make me rethink my position?)
There is nothing to be done about 5kR1p7 k1DD135 who want to be "cool", except to hope (ask?) for them to grow up and contribute.
Cheers,
Brian
Re:Online Gaming, esp Quake (Score:2)
Thats what its all about? (Score:2)
Err, I'd never considered annonymity to be what freedom of speech is "all about" myself. In fact, I generally assume that annonymous speech is less deserving of protection than a person standing behind their own words.
OT perhaps, but I believe the US high court agrees with me on this subject. New York (sucessfully I think) said that while the KKK must be allowed to hold their rally, they didn't have to let them do it if they wore masks meant to hide their identity. If you want to stand up and be counted, why hide yourself?
Bearing in mind that many people have choosen to tell their stories from annonymity, but this usually has required a outspoken channel to transmit their story to the rest of the world. There is a distinction there I think between letting the rest of the world know the facts of your life and shouting "hey look at me" but not wanting the attention to come with any responsibility.
Attribute your sources (Score:2)
A good corrolary to Kaa's law would be this:
/'s corrolary to Kaa's law: Since the majority are idiots, a preponderance of the evidence says you're one of them.
There is no such thing as "rights" (Score:2)
I believe there is no such things as rights. Except in the sense that " a right" is something that a person is willing to fight for.
IMO when the The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America [nara.gov] says 'unalienable rights", it really meant issues the signers were willing to die for.
So in the context of discussion groups, your "right to free speech" is the same as your willingness to risk being flamed.
A community's "right to be flame free" is equal to its willingness to fight flamers.
A right is not something that is magically guaranteed or universally constant.
Furthermore are you sure you are willing for the countermeasures you describing to be applied to you.
Re:again with the generalizations about white men (Score:2)
It was not an assumption, just a fact some people don't seem to like. Get over the false indignation and get on with life.
Except for one point (Score:2)
A couple gripes: you say "we" when you mean to say "we Americans". Not everyone in this forum (or on the internet in general) is American.
Your proposal of yet another Bill of Rights is stupid for several reasons
It undermines the common respect for the actual (American) Bill of Rights. The whole point of such bills is that they outline fundamental and inviolable rights, and they cannot be simply legislated or dismantled under any conditions other than constitutional crises.
What, pray tell, would you enshrine in such a bill? The right not to be offended? The right not to be exposed to profanity? It is insane to try to guarantee these things for the reasons cited above and for others. If you want a good read, try Cohen v. California (1971) [findlaw.com], where the US Supreme Court pointedly noted that it is "often true that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric".
Your fetish with hostile environment threatens to undermine many other cherished freedoms. The suppression of mere hostility is a poor prize to be purchased with the coin of libery.
Freedom requires responsibility. (Score:2)
There are a lot of stories that cite annonymous sources in publications such as Business Week, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times that would have never seen the light of day if the correspondents were forced to reveal themselves.
Yes, AC's around here seem to be usually obnoxious, but obviously you've never made a comment around here that you thought was an insiteful bit and woke up the next day to find your mailbox stuffed with 50 messages all calling you a dipshit, or what not.
Freedom is a responsibility. I hope that we can be responsible enough that our right or ability to speak anonymously, without fear of retribution, is never taken away.
Send More Cops! (Score:2)
Re:Jon Katz, you're so full of ***, no offence! (Score:3)
The proof of the pudding is that you've posted and added to the discussion - and not just once, but two times to this one (no.3) and four to the last one (no.2). You may not personally approve (although it doesn't seem to bother you that much), but you grant Katz legitimacy by your participation. Everyone who whines about Katz this and Katz that - they all read him. His mission is accomplished.
I'd like to address a few points which are worthy of note.
The Internet is in most respects genderless.
This is false. Identifiable groups tend to have distinctive common interests and bodies of knowledge. Geeky white men tend to have geeky white man views. Non-geeky white men may share part of these, non-white geeky men others, geeky women still others. This is the basis for demographic analysis and niche marketing, among other fields. It is a primarily statistical argument, but that doesn't invalidate it.
To connect it to the internet, if you go to a site which appeals to geeky white men and covers most of their interests, it isn't a big stretch that most of the people there will be geeky white men. You can make a bet with good odds, even if you don't know the identity of any individual poster but yourself.
Hostility [...]is found in the real world in the same proportions as it is on f.e. Slashdot
I doubt it, unless you spend altogether too much time in riots.
Perhaps I should correct that: there might be an equal amount of hostile thoughts (although I doubt that too), but hostile comment and overt hostility is not.
The internet can promote that kind of hostility the same way a mob does: by breaking the link between act and its consequences. A rioter may see the damage that he causes, but feels no social sanction for it (in fact, they may receive social affirmation). Likewise for J. Random Flamer on
I was offended, and yes, I mean offended, by your suggestion that anonymous posts be restricted.
Yes, yes, we all know about the first amendment, but andover.net isn't Congress (and thus the first amendment doesn't apply). There is no obligation to provide a soapbox for whoever happens to be passing through.
Now, the people who are passing through can be very valuable posters. Whenever I get to moderate, I try to spend at least half on AC's and lower my threshold to let me read them and pick out the best. It doesn't mean that the existence of AC's is a given, and if AC's become more of a drain on
I find your ideas somewhat fascist.
Fascism: a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control and extreme pride in country and race, and in which political opposition is not allowed. (Cambridge Dictionaries online).
Katz's ideas are nowhere near fascist. He's not even on the right, much less the far right.
With all the resources readily available on the internet, resorting to a base epithet out of ignorance is unforgivable. Of course, calling Katz a liberal or social democrat probably doesn't have the same knee-jerk sting.
--
So sadly true (Score:2)
Exactly.
Unfortunately, by reading and posting, I'm driving the page views for Katz's stories up too high-- so
Too true. While the traffic accident appeal of his 'controversial' articles keeps me coming back for more, I'd be the first to loudly cheer his leaving or being relieved of duty. I'm sure Andover is pleased with the response he generates, and Hemos et al probably just throw up their hands and say "Hey! He can write whatever he wants! Don't look at us!". It lowers the quality of Slashdot but makes for a wider appeal, which makes for steadier paychecks for all involved. More power to 'em, I guess.
Re:Jon Katz, you're so full of ***, no offence! (Score:2)
Hmm. I *half* agree - it is difficult or impossible to tell the sex of a poster, and colour is even worse, but those who approach english as a second language DO tend to be discriminated against online - the Internet has such a pro-english bias that sites that don't support an additional English translation page for each of their non-english ones often find themselves without an index in most search engines - and almost certainly not linked to from the english sites (although linking TO the english sites seems to be expected - strange that, isnt' it
--
Your Resources Are YOUR Responsibility (Score:2)
If you choose to scroll down to the bottom of every page and get red around the ears at a few NP/grits posts, then you have gone out of your way to spend your own resources (time and attention), and that is YOUR responsibility.
Re:Frightening away women. (Score:2)
but i'll certainly echo your call for information on people who feel their gender affects their participation in an online forum, *and* how they feel about it (i.e. whether their gender makes them feel more or less likely to be taken seriously/flamed/ignored/whathaveyou). i would think, especially in a forum like this, a poster would be more likely scared off by his/her lack of knowledge than gender. me, for instance. in my own mind, my gender is irrelevant. but i am *gasp* a newbie (here come the flames). i lurk (usually) becuase i'm still learning, not because of what i have or don't have between my legs.
anyway. back on topic, a study like that would be interesting, i think. but, given how highly people value their anonymity on the web, the information would probably be very hard to gather. especially if the people are lurking in the first place.
Many of the solutions already implemented here... (Score:2)
Perhaps through great foresight or just order from chaos. The free fire zones are accessed by reading at threshold -1. Milder forms can be seen at 0 or even 1. By the time one gets to 2, the offtopic, trolls, and flamebait are mostly gone.
Lurking serves as a sort of introduction to the site (as it has since the BBS days). Karma is a sort of membership based on merit. Meta moderation keeps the moderation system honest.
As with anything, the system is not perfect, but it beats required logins, banning members, and deleting messages. Until some sort of AI comes along that can accuratly categorize comments, it's probably the best compromise possable.
Mission Accomplished Indeed (Score:2)
His 'mission' being, always and ever, a childish plea for attention and approval. He has been given the honorable position of having whatever he chooses to write posted as a headline for all to see on Slashdot, and yet he refuses to show any respect whatsoever for that honor, instead using it as a pulpit from which he attempts to passive-aggressively bully others into supporting him so he can look good in front of his editorial peers.
There is no obligation to provide a soapbox for whoever happens to be passing through.
True enough. Let's chuck JKatz's soapbox right now and let him duke it out on the same level as everyone else.
The internet can promote that kind of hostility the same way a mob does: by breaking the link between act and its consequences.
I think an earlier reference to car drivers is much better than a mob. A mob galvanizes itself around a single idea against a single focus, kind of like how JKatz wants people to mob together against 'people who say mean things about him'. Phaagh.
Katz's ideas are nowhere near fascist. He's not even on the right, much less the far right.
'Political' opposition has always consisted in large part of catcalls and badmouthing. Jon seems to wish to have this 'rabble' done away with, because it offends his sensibilities. Point is, it's supposed to.
resorting to a base epithet out of ignorance is unforgivable...probably doesn't have the same knee-jerk sting
Base epithets are a fact of life, and sometimes, when one feels one has been truly offended, a little knee-jerk sting is called for. During the American Revolution, people were tarred and feathered for having dissenting opinions. Base epithets? Bring 'em on!
Not truly sexless/raceless (Score:2)
You may not know the race, sex, or creed of the other readers of a forum you participate in, but the readers themselves certainly know, and if a large enough fraction of the posts in the forum are posts bashing a particular reader's sex, race, or whatever, that reader will simply leave. Nobody likes to be insulted, even if the insults are directed at a class, rather than a specific individual. So, you see, you do not need to know who is or is not an X in order to exclude all Xes from a forum; you just need to be loudly and pervasively offensive to Xes, and they will oblige you by removing themselves.
Now, you say that you want to hear "EVERYTHING that EVERYONE has to say" about a topic (a dubious sentiment in light of Sturgeon's Law, but certainly your privilege), so I put it to you: is it right for a minority of the participants in a forum to use persistent insults and offensive remarks to drive away a segment of the readers of the forum, and so to deny the rest of us the opportunity to hear their viewpoints? This is the topic Katz is trying to address. Whether he does so effectively is open to debate; his article is certainly noticably short on practicable solutions. However, burying your head in the sand isn't going to make the problem go away.
I would be remiss if I didn't point out that one of the things I like about slashdot is that its moderation system does a pretty good job (most of the time) at filtering out the flamage and hostility. That's a rarity among internet fora (at least among those that allow open participation), however, and it's the thing that keeps me coming back here long after I've discarded most other similar fora as useless. It's kind of interesting to note that apparently when you remove the moderation (as would be the case, for instance, in email feedback to slashdot columnists), a lot of the civility is lost.
-r
Katz Doesn't "Get It"? (Score:2)
Most of his style is still more suited to a magazine article than a more bare-bones, technologically-oriented community like SlashDot. I feel like he's not talking *to* us, he's talking *at* us.
Only occasionally does the pretense falter, when he switches from "them" to "us", from "at SlashDot" to "here".
One of the conclusions I've drawn is that he's more interested in retaining the ability to reproduce his articles in a book or magazine than really becoming "one of us". He's already produced a book, right? With content from SlashDot?
And now it seems like he's intent on changing SlashDot into his vision of an online community. Except he doesn't come out straight and say, "Hey, let's try this?" He writes a whole column that sounds like a generic opinion column, but really is a dig at SlashDot's current procedures.
Come out and *say* it. Stop being the magazine columnist.
You Have Been Trolled (Score:2)
Let me break it down like this- If you want to disrupt a discussion pick a tired old stereotype or religous issue (such as angry white boys or choice of OS). Make a very long winded post about it (if it's long it must be well thought, right?) Pick one side, but don't really come out and say what you mean, beat around the bush some. Back up your anecdotal evidence with...nothing. No facts, conclusions, etc. Just ask lots of questions, with answers that you know already your audience will not agree on (see the middle of his article, right before the bullets.) Now the only thing to do is sit back and let the flames roll in.
Jon, if you are serious then maybe you need to rethink this whole "Internet" thing. The only thing I see you accomplishing is the alienation of your readers, both to you and each other. People have, do, and will always feel the need to take out their agressions. Online is the perfect place to do this, due to the anonyminity that you are so quick to and by now most people have either either developed a defense mechanism for it or left for kinder, gentler pasteurs.
I said it in another post that was probably too nested for anyone to see but here it is again, when someone flames you it means one of three things.
1. They have a point, consider that for a second.
2. They have no point. Ignore them or flame back if you are so inclined.
3. Everyone is flaming you. Draw your own conclusions.
Notice there is nothing in there about whining about the flaming, as whining is simply asking for more fire.
There, now I've been trolled by Jon Katz too
mcrandello@my-deja.com
rschaar{at}pegasus.cc.ucf.edu if it's important.
Read Closely (Score:2)
"I will not reason" --> BIGOT
"I can't reason!" --> FOOL
"I...don't dare to reason. Someone might not like me!" --> SLAVE
Slave to who or what you ask? A slave to his or her own Fear. Does that sound...reasonable? Hope this clarifies things!
ESL discrimination (Score:2)
This is true. The simple reason, of course, is that it can be hard to tell the difference between awkward use of a language that one doesn't know very well from someone who isn't thinking straight. IF I have to write a message in german (which I half know) it's going to be 1/2 kindergarten language and 1/2 babelfish. Someone reading it that doesn't know that would assume I'm a moron. So, yes, I would add a footnote asking to pardon my pidheon.
The english-language centric nature of the net is something that we (/.)can't change. It will probably only increase despite the growing influx of non-native speakers. Most of them leared some english in school and english has the odd distinction of being the language that can be most horribly mangled and still be understood. If anyone remembers the PBS documentary "The Story of English" this was one of its key insights.
Re:Mission Accomplished Indeed (Score:3)
You know, it would seem much more convincing if his readership was going down rather than up. I'm more than capable of ignoring people whom I consider childish and whiny, and while I may be mistaken if I assume the same of other
He has been given the honorable position of having whatever he chooses to write posted as a headline for all to see on Slashdot
You mean, the priviledge of working for free? Please, grant me no more of these priviledges, Lord, I had enough of them when I was running my own company.
But seriously.
That his point of view is often inconsistent with that of the readership is not necessarily a bug. Salon [salon.com], a popular left-liberal site, has both far-righter David Horowitz and rightist critic Camille Paglia as columnists. Both arouse great gouts of ire from readers and other staffers, but they're both good writers and difficult to ignore. Harmony for all writers and points of view within a publication doesn't make for good journalism; it makes for a circle-jerk.
pulpit from which he attempts to passive-aggressively bully others into supporting him
And that would be unlike any other columnist
--
Help! Help! I am being oppressed! (Score:2)
That mean Jon Katz, going and righting his article and not explicitly including me and my group. What a religous bigot! There can only be one answer:
The Spanish Inquisition!!
Well, I guess my post is exactly what the article was about, but sometimes you just vent a little. Anyway, one more Pythonism and I will be on my way.
Come see the violence inherent in the system! Come see the violence inherent in the system!
Can't have both freedom and enforcement (Score:2)
Do the people running websites have any responsibility for creating environments
which are truly free, and not dominated by the most hostile members?
I don't think Jon understands the meaning of the word "freedom." Having a "truly free" environment means there are no restrictions; anyone can post about anything. Hostile members, by definition, will be able to try to dominate a discussion if they want. Slashdot lets each reader control the viewing of his/her own content, without regulating content themselves. This is true freedom - you can flame, but others are equally free - to ignore you or flame you back.
It is just as ridiculous to claim that mere words literally prevent certain groups of people from posting their own words. You can say what you want about cultural differences, but in a truly free forum like this one, NOT having to "take responsibility" for your own words actually encourages people who would otherwise not post at all, because the social pressures are not there - it is precisely because people do NOT know if I am black, male, female, or what have you, that I can post without worrying what anyone thinks about it - whether someone will lob a racist or sexist remark at me, or devalue my opinion because of my genetic makeup. And ultimately it is still my choice to read or not, to post or not.
Even in the freest society, people don't ignore traffic lights or knock
down traffic signs - if they did, others would get injured or killed.
This is the most naive thing I've read in a while. Do you even drive? People ignore traffic lights and knock down signs all the time. MOST people obey the law because it is far more convenient (and less expensive) and, get this, because if they did, THEY would most likely be injured or killed. The people who run traffic lights and knock over signs do it mostly because they think they can get away with it (both legally and physically). So what "freest" society are you talking about?
So, the nice thing about a "free" society is that if I can't take the heat, I'm "free" to avoid the group entirely and form my own little fascist, private, speech-controlled community. In fact, this already happens.
So excited about nothing. (Score:2)
Sure. It makes no sense to construct and maintain commercial websites that exclude most of humanity, or punish them when they try to join communal discussions.
Here I assume that you're talking about slashdot, though I wasn't aware that slashdot was a commercial website (the implication being that the sole purpose of a commerical website is the generation of capital, where
But hostile environments will present a worsening problem for e-communities
e-communities? Why do you feel the need to stick a label on something in this manner? Labelling all online discussion forums, online special interest groups, mailing lists under such a general name goes a long way towards ignoring the vast differences between each group. Everytime you use the word e-communities I don't know if you're talking about mailing lists, web forums or what. This makes it very hard to have a precise debate/conversation/essay when you're using generalities like this.
Communities naturally tend to exclude some people and make others feel welcome. But the founders of this site never meant for Slashdot to be an exclusive club for programmers using a particular computer operating system.
Maybe you've got a much better handle on the demographics of slashdot readers than I, but this is definitely not an exclusive club for programmers and users of Linux. Check the web logs, I bet less than half the readers here use Linux to read the site. As for programmers, you'd best inform the people that I work with, my friends, and my girlfriend that they can all gets jobs in the computer industry now, as they read slashdot and thus must be programmers. Unless of course you meant to end that paragraph with "and it hasn't become one."
Sites like Slashdot are a natural place, but these kinds of conversations are impossible here, short-circuited by angry kids often with anonymous pseuds.
By this comment I get the impression that you either don't read the comments that get posted to slashdot, or that you're incredibly sensitive and get offended by argument quite easily. Slashdot is a very civil forum and much good/interesting information is exchanged daily. Perhaps you should start reading at the comments moderated up to 5, and stop around 2 or so. If you don't read the -1s (I do, some of them are funny as hell), you stand a very good chance of not getting offended at all, unless you're simply offended by someone with an alternate viewpoint to your own.
The Web's failure to produce or maintain common discussion grounds is getting to be a serious problem with real consequences. Misinformation about genetic research, online safety - even the Y2K problems - spreads primarily because intelligent public discussion of these issues isn't possible, except in places where nobody knows much about them, like Congress or on TV talk shows.
If you want intelligent and accurate discussion about a specific topic, you probably shouldn't be looking at a web forum that deals with a wide variety of topics. If you want good advice about the law, don't want Geraldo, or even Larry King live. Intelligent discussion takes place (more or less) on these sites and shows, but they're not experts. Just like watching politically correct, it's interesting, but the people on the show are generally fairly basic when it comes to philosophy and politics. It seems the biggest problem here is that you simply don't know where to look when you want to inform yourself on a specific topic. If I want to find something about about the movie industry, IPv6 or about 18th century litterature, I don't head to slashdot, or any other general discussion group. I get my ass on some mailing lists, read FAQs and talk to the people who inhabit these specific forum(s?). Intelligent discussion goes on here on a daily basis, without all the "terrible" flamage that you seem to perceive on the web. I've been on some mailing lists for over a year without encountering a single flame. I see no reason to complain that you can't talk truly in depth about technology in a broad forum.
(You might call this the John Rocker Syndrome - he's the Atlanta Braves pitcher who recently complained about too many "foreigners" being permitted into New York City and the United States.
Again with the labels. Why do you insist on labeling things like this. All it does is take away from the actual point you were trying to make. Gratuitous labeling weakens the discussion.
Again, Slashdot is a relevant example, a new kind of website. Initially, its focus was the things that most interested Rob Malda, its creator - "Legos, Linux, Movies Hardware", is how he describes it. Recently, it's broadened to include those subjects and a growing focus on technology and culture. As it grows and broadens, some of its self-appointed border guards have become increasingly agitated and resentful.
By "self appointed border guards", do you mean anyone who complains about the amount of political, legal and financially spun articals we've been seeing so much of lately on slashdot? Here again you're labeling, and by labeling the people who complain, you divert the attention away from why they might be complaining. This is akin to branding feminists "feminazis". These words are emotionally charged and do nothing to further discussion. This has the same result as being aggressive/hostile, and is simply more subtle.
It's striking how timid the most fearsome flamers become face to face.
Apparently this is very easy to say, but what experience do you have with this? The people I've met that have flamed me, and those who I've flamed at the university I attend, were in no way timid or anything aside from their usual selves.
Are hostile environments simply a trade-off for freedom, then, one of the permanent legacies of the talented young men who helped build the Net and are building it still? Not at all. The reason I say this is because I do not believe that the hostile environments you speak of exist. There are hostilities in some environments, but it's not this terrible epidemic you make it out to be.
Do members of these communities - that's us - have any responsibility to challenge people who assault others online, create environments in which some of the most urgent issues of our lifetimes can be discussed and debated in a coherent, civil and rational way?
Goodness, calm down a bit there. These debates that occur online are in no way more hostile or uncivil as those that occur in Real Life(tm). Attend a political debate or party election. Stand at the back. Listen to the ACs that grumble and hold strong, unmitigated opinions. In RL people just ignore the crackpots and flamers. Online that's all people should be doing anyways. WRT Slashdot, up your threshold, don't read the -1s, and just calm down. The only time that a hostile environment can exist in a place like slashdot is if you allow it to exist in your mind. If you are personally offended by flames or trolls, that's your own problem. If you're not strong enough to have the confidence in yourself to shrug off baseless insults, no one has the responsibilty to hold your hand and provide a "safe" forum for you in which to air your own particular set of views.
And perhaps most importantly, are people responsible for what they say? Should they be held accountable online, as they are off, for assaultive, hostile communication and other behavior that restricts access, free speech and the free exchange of information and opinion?
Again, your free speech is only curtailed by flames and hotility if you allow it to be. If I say something nasty about your mother, how am I forcing you to react to that? If I question your lineage, does that somehow limit your ability to post coherent and rational discussion to the forum? If so, please explain to me exactly how so.
Adolescent males are hungry for attention and peer approval. Why else flame at all?
Well, since the last two people to flame me were over the age of 30, I can't rightly tell you. Maybe the problem is your assumption about the demographics of flamers. Do you happen to have any figures at all to back up your assumption?
The Net has raised issues relating to freedom to completely new and complex levels, since the Net is the freest medium in American life, and the freest in its history. Your US-centric approach probably only irritates me because I'm Canadian. Slashdot is hosted in the US, but topics such as these concern everyone. Why alienate such a large section of your readership by looking at everything through US-coloured glasses?
Freedom is great, and it's easy to be for it. Hostile environments aren't great. Increasingly, they do a lot of harm.
I'm sorry, but Slashdot just isn't a hostile environment. Croatia, that's a hostile environment. Even Seattle during the WTO talks, that's a hostile environment. A web forum, where the worst thing that can happen is you can read a comment that's baselessly offensive, that's not a hostile environment unless you let it be. The same goes for any soical grouping of people, be it a chruch group, a party, grade school, etc.
Re:Jon Katz, you're so full of ***, no offence! (Score:3)
This is false. Identifiable groups tend to have distinctive common interests and bodies of knowledge. Geeky white men tend to have geeky white man views. Non-geeky white men may share part of these, non-white geeky men others, geeky women still others. This is the basis for demographic analysis and niche marketing, among other fields. It is a primarily statistical argument, but that doesn't invalidate it.
I think what Paladeen meant here is not that the Internet has no demographics, but that the distinguishing characteristics of certain social groups are not evident. In the real world, a man might ignore what a woman had to say simply because she is a woman. On a mostly-male Internet discussion group, a woman could present a thoughtful, unique point of view, and the men might actually listen to her.
Re:An interesting theory... (Score:2)
Unfortunately, one-way (up or down) moderation leaves no room for correction. If a moderator decided to bump up a "M$ sux!" post, it would forever remain moderated up. Similarly, in a down-only scheme, a well thought out pro-patent post could be moderated down to forever live with the trolls.
A one-way moderation scheme would work with absolutely perfect moderators (whatever that might mean), but since that's an impossibility, moderators have to have the ability to correct for unfairly moderated posts.
Err on the side of freedom (Score:2)
Probably. There is really no way to come up with a single right answer to the question of how much freedom is enough. Nearly everyone will agree that an individual's freedom includes everything that doesn't infringe on the rights of another. But that raises obvious questions when multiple parties interact. For example, I am an advocate of nearly unlimited freedom of speech. With that freedom comes the responsibility for what I say. I can make damaging claims about someone, but if they are not true, I have done him harm unjustly. And I am responsible for that. Fine.
Now does the moderator of a web site have the right to restrict my access because of what I say? If that web site is treated like a broadcaster or a publisher, yes. But is a web site more like a public forum? It is hard to say. The analogies break down somewhat. I would lean towards saying that the owner of the site has the right to determine how it is used. Does that come with responsibility for that use? That could depend in complex ways on the moderation policy.
Do the people running websites have any responsibility for creating environments which are truly free, and not dominated by the most hostile members?
I would say no. The responsibility is to have a clear policy posted about the rules, if any, for use of the site. And while that policy will necessarily be rather general, it should be applied as consistently as possible. That will allow free for all environments to compete for mind share with heavily moderated environments. Each community can define its own standards, but should publish them.
Do members of these communities - that's us - have any responsibility to challenge people who assault others online, create environments in which some of the most urgent issues of our lifetimes can be discussed and debated in a coherent, civil and rational way?
No. And I'll happily shout down anyone who says that I do. I'm responsible for my own actions, not those of others. I rarely respond to abusive people. First of all, they are not worth the effort in most cases. Yes, I am saying that they are beneath my contempt. But more importantly, they are often acting abusive to attract attention. They get some amusement out of the annoyance they cause. I don't bother. Short of being able to permanently pull the plug on their net access, we can't get rid of them. The only other option is to ignore them, perhaps by actively filtering them out. Yes, I do maintain a killfill for my newsreader.
And perhaps most importantly, are people responsible for what they say?
Yes. That does not differ from speech in the physical world. The medium does not alter responsibility for the content. What it does change is the range of options available to us. It is possible to create anonymous, persistent, verifiable identities on a network. Most web browsers, web sites, newsreaders, mail clients, etc. don't take advantage of these technologies. That would allow us to maintain anonymity along with all of its advantages along with the ability to attach a reputation and a history to an identity. Just as Karma points on Slashdot link a logged in user to a history of activity, so could a more pervasive technology.
Certainly, there would be people who would create new identities frequently and use them abusively. And the reputation of each one would fall from zero downward. They would be of little use. Identities for which a person had developed a positive reputation would be worth keeping. Just as here on Slashdot, I am motivated to post intelligent comments. People obviously read what I say because my comments are moderated favorably and people reply to my comments.
I value the availability to post as an Anonymous Coward. I value it because it gives people posting subjects that are too hot to handle personally a chance to let us know about them. But perhaps even more valuable, it makes Slashdot accessible to anyone who drops in. It lowers the barriers to posting comments. That encourages new blood and new ideas. The guys at Slashdot have deliberately restricted their own control over the site. They post the articles. They guide the site towards the topics they consider to be the focus of the site. And then the option to comment is not restricted.
Had they stopped there, Slashdot would be very much like Usenet in some ways. The articles posted each day would act as newsgroups with people free to start any threads they wanted, but unable to create their on groups. The additional step of moderation, performed by a large pool of interested users effective means that we are using the abilities and interests of the users of the site to help focus it. It is an extremely powerful mechanism. Without relegating any person or idea completely to the bit bucket, we still have a mechanism that promotes what we, the community of Slashdot, deem to be most worthy of the attention of our fellow users to the front of the queue.
Re:Read (past tense) Closely (Score:2)
1) Do we really have so little consideration for other people that we value our freedom to express our own hostility so highly that we'll push them into slavery (sure, it's to themselves, but it's still slavery, and the hostility still helps contribute to it). Wouldn't it be better to contribute to an environment where such people can test the outside of their comfort zones a little, and perhaps overcome their fear?
If Slashdot is so much about freedom, it would be ironic if that meant only "freedom for ME", without caring about helping others to become more free also.
2) If (okay, I'm making an assumption that may not be true for some people) our goal is to have a stimulating discussion, would the discussion not be more enhanced by the inclusion of a wider variety of opinions than it is by the
There's a term called "poisoning the well", which means shutting out differing opinions by expressing one opinion in a way that attempts to make anyone who disagrees look like a fool. While that doesn't actually take away someone's freedom to disagree, in reality, it is clearly the case that it reduces the number of differing opinions that are expressed.
Please Die4 (Score:2)
I want news for nerds...not ramblings (3 articles no less!) about flamings on sites for news for nerds.
Jazilla.org - the Java Mozilla [sourceforge.net]
You're missing the point. (Score:2)
He's ALREADY implied, over and over, that he doesn't think Christians and members of other religions are welcome on Slashdot. But by deliberately excluded "religion" from his list of people who should be included, his "gender, age, nationality" list, he's clearly showing that his prejudices are keeping him for speaking fairly in this (he thinks) very important issue.
It's not that JonKatz didn't include Christians in his list of people who should be "included", it's that he WOULDN'T. I know JonKatz would never say that. Because he wants to look "cool," he'd never be caught dead saying anything remotely pro-religion or pro-religious-tolerance in an atheistic society like Slashdot where dangerous ideas like religious tolerance are taboo.
Jon Katz, the young rich white technically-saavy (cough) atheist, who's willing to accept the non-young, the non-rich, the non-white, the non-technically-saavy, but not the non-atheist.
What are you afraid of, Jon Katz? I'm calling you out. Are you a coward, or aren't you?
Once more, with feeling. *SIGH* (Score:3)
There are flame-free zones on the net- I've seen one. It was and is a Usenet newsgroup, co-hosted on a private news network dedicated to that group and others like it, and it was created as refuge from a flame-saturated situation which showed no signs of ever easing up, i.e. the group alt.fan.furry. (If you want to see what real flames look like, go look at that- even so, there is some normal dialogue there).
A subgroup was tired of being flamed and left to create this new group, and in the charter specified that it was orthoganal to AFF interests and also specified that flaming and argument was offtopic, that nobody's opinions were to be denigrated but also that you weren't to denigrate anybody or anything. THIS WORKED. It continues to work and has worked even in the face of the occasional attack from flamers or 'meowers' or whoever. But it asks a lot- more, I think, than you, Jon, can give.
How often, Jon, do you refrain from denigrating people or things? It appears to me that you wish to have flames against you outlawed by rule or peer pressure, but you still want to flame hotheaded adolescents, corporations, movie theaters, you name it. This is unfair- and you don't deserve peace unless you are willing to start extending it.
As for myself, I've spent a lot of effort mediating and protecting this mysterious non-flame newsgroup I speak of (in which everyone has every freedom except the freedom to denigrate which must be exercised elsewhere). I compare it to Slashdot and I think it would be vastly inappropriate to subject Slashdot to such conditions. Never mind that it can't happen because it'd have to be written into the charter and have all slashdotters agree on it- even so, Slashdot is simply too feisty and controversial to function under such a system. Its primary value is that of a crucible in which the newest tech and the most bitterly contested issues are brought to light and argued about by the readership until a reader can see all the points of view and find a personal viewpoint on the matter. Even in your own articles the most important work is done by the readership, not you. Far from 'self-appointed border guards', a deeply derogatory description, these people are Slashdot.org, something you seem to not understand in your desire to be superior to them and control or silence them.
And on a personal note, I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with your characterisations of your enemies. Am I the 'Invisible Katz-Critic'? To read your take on the matter, I am an illiterate, adolescent, cowardly hothead primarily motivated by jealousy and spite, with nothing to say. I just want to take a minute to rebut this, knowing that you are not even deigning to read this, but that others are, and can form their own opinions on my character.
- I am not illiterate. I've been a writer for years, and have written for the international audio journal "The Absolute Sound" (v18, issues 87 and 88). I have fiction writing [airwindows.com] up on the web, including my first novel, "The Kings of Rainmoor".
- I am not adolescent. I was born in '68 and am 31 years old. Maybe this is not the ravages of old age, but it is certainly not adolescence, and I prefer it that way. I hated my adolescence and prefer being an adult.
- I am not a coward. It particularly rankles after I've constantly put myself out there, willingly risking 'dekarmaization' from what fans of yours remain, to criticise your failings publically, under my own name. My email is available- you certainly have not used it. I'll make a special one, just for you: IKatz@airwindows.com [mailto] to make replying as easy as a single click on a word in the middle of the text you're (not) reading. I don't believe for a second this will work, but what more can I do? I honestly considered posting my full address and telephone number, might still do so someday in a fit of bravado, but this would fall more accurately under 'I am not stupid'
;) - I am not motivated by jealousy. Jon, I've had a feature all to myself on Slashdot too. I can have another one any time I want, under two conditions- one, that I come up with a topic that is genuinely interesting and worthy of Slashdot and the attention of its readers, and two, that I put enough effort into writing it to justify its massive virtual publication. You seem to be free of either of these restrictions- am I jealous of that? No, because they are self-imposed restrictions reinforced by the necessity of going through Slashdot editorial circles. If I had story posting access like you, I can only say that I would be a great deal more sensitive to the responsibility of it.
- I am not motivated by spite. Jon, you abuse your position. You come out with the damndest notions and use your access to media to dump them on the world without a thought to your responsibility.
I just replied to a poster on your last story- who thought I was making a straw man argument about your advocating (in the Ticket Booth Tyranny articles) that Slashdotters should go sneak children into dirty movies without consulting the childrens' parents. My reply was to _quote_ you directly, and you advocated just this. Can't you see this is wrong? Can't you see that you have responsibilities that come with access to media that reaches large numbers of people? You have been misbehaving, and continue to do so- now you are mounting a little crusade all your own, and can anyone guess the purpose? It's not landing that big movie deal, or sneaking kids into cinemas- no, what you are doing now is making a concerted effort to damage the reputation, the validity of Slashdot discussion forums, just because they criticise you!Rob Malda, do you really want this guy publically denigrating _your_ _creation_?? That's crazy! It's also harmful- if self-moderating discussion boards develop the public image of mere usenet groups (and who is to say even these are valueless? Russ Albery's Rant [xnet.com]) then a major and novel mechanism for social equality is cut off at the knees. It is _important_ that people learn to respect the value, and tolerate the jarring nature, of an 'unfiltered feed' of opinion and information. It will be a tremendous victory if people can learn to coexist and thrive in an environment which contains both approval and bitter disapproval, and allow the full range of opinion to get out there, allow the public to get the whole story (including rants and even nonsense and spite) and make up their minds about it.
Except, Jon Katz does not _trust_ the new media. That which he likes, such as R-rated movies, he considers a freedom, and overrides anyone else's opinion thereof. That which he doesn't like, such as detailed, bitter criticism of himself and his whole ethic? Well, we'll assume that he does not try to have it silenced outright. (Only CmdrTaco and other Slashdot staffers can answer this, as they are the only ones who'd hear if Jon had been steadily canvassing for the banning of ACs, his pet peeve.) Assuming that he has not been surreptitiously trying to get ACs shut off, his reaction is instead to attack their reputation! It's been posted in this very thread that the overall karma value for the AC is 1975- that's a very positive moderation total! Yet to listen to Jon, they are all hothead adolescents- and the unstated implication here is that such people should not be listened to, do not have a right to an opinion. One wonders if Jon felt the same way about adolescents in the 60s when he was one...
Summary? Jon Katz abuses his position, and has increasingly been trying to discredit the very publically-moderated system that makes Slashdot what it is. He needs to be dropped. Period.
Re:What resources? (Score:2)
One thing Jon mentioned that struck me as interesting was about mentors. I don't agree exactly with what he said, but I'm glad that he realizes that there must be talent lurking in Slashdot's -1 playpen. I think if he'd followed that train of thought a little farther he might realize that we already are mentoring. Slashdot is actually giving them a playground where they can act out at the same time as they are learning how others more effectively communicate in a public forum. This goes for those that aren't literally children as well.
Then there are the people that are being scared off by the hostility. The lurkers that Jon says should take responsibility and stand up to the 'hostiles.' I less than half-agree with what Jon is saying here. I get the impression that Jon is looking at it as joining together and fighting back. Definately the wrong way to deal with it. I'd say this to the lurkers instead: "If you have something to say, stand up and say it. If you fear repercussions then get a free hushmail account and use a psuedonym on Slashdot." I have a feeling though that people are more scared of getting nailed with a well-thought-out but not-so-friendly criticism by some 200 IQ mental bully. No matter what you do, you will be criticized eventually. Accept it, learn from it, deny it, or throw it away, the choice is yours. Just don't cry over it because it's not that big of a deal.
newsflash: The moderation system isn't perfect. Still, it works incredibly well despite its flaws. I think any attempt to abolish the offending posts will turn out to be a huge waste of time at best, but more likely it will fsck things up. Rob, I sincerely hope you aren't considering doing this.
numb
Do you want to rule the world and control it? I don't think it can ever be done. The world is sacred vessel and it can not be controlled. You will only it make it worse if you try. It may slip through your fingers and disappear. -- Lao-Tzu [umd.edu]
the problems with Slashdot's system (Score:4)
- Comments are always attached to stories. Because it's impossible to just go into a generic forum and start up a discussion about the topic of one's choice, some posters feel the need to post offtopic messages or even attempt to "hijack" a thread or whole discussion. My own pet topic is libertarian politics, but hours, days, weeks can go by without an appropriate story to post my thoughts to (though for that particular topic, I usually have quite a few opportunities). On the other hand, I've never seen a system where comments could be attached to stories OR seperate. At the Shugashack, they're attached to stories. At ArsTechnica, they're totally seperate. Many times at Ars, a story will say "take your thoughts to the forum!" or whatever, but it's often left up to the readers to start a new thread, and rarely is a link provided to it. The mythical "ideal" discussion system probably would exist as a mix of these two, with comments about stories, and a seperate space for standalone discussion.
- Threading, and the other default comment options. Though Slashdot provides very robust functionality for custom comment viewing, the default is still threaded, oldest first. Since this is the format used by all non-logged-in users and anyone who hasn't changed it, it's what shapes the discussions. At the Shugashack, where there is no customization, and comments are always displayed flat, newest first, the flow of discussion is very different. First posts, while still an issue, are eclipsed very quickly, and on stories with a large number of comments (100+), many posters and readers will never see them at all. But a larger issue than "first posters" is the amount of attention a comment receives as it relates to when it's posted. At the Shugashack, those most likely to see your comment are those reading the comments immediately after you post it. But at Slashdot, there is an opposing and very complex system at work. First, the default viewing parameters mean that the first few posts will get the most eyeballs. Moderation is also very influential since its effects are enabled by default. Probably the worst factor though, is the difference in attention between new threads and replies. Since the display defaults to threaded, the first post in a thread is far more prominently displayed, and naturally gets the bulk of the attention. Threads are important to organized discussion of a sub-topic, but I cannot excuse the way they short-shrift replies. I voice my favor for the UBB style, where messages are divided into threads, but displayed "flat" within them. Again, I must emphasize that it's the DEFAULT system that shapes the flow of the discussions. Related to the fact that the first posts get more eyeballs is a problem wherein after a certain number of posts, new posts become essentially invisible. Depending on interest in the story, this number ranges from about 100 to 300. In fact, this post itself is hardly worth making, as the front page comment meter is showing 383 comments already posted, thus reducing the likelihood of this message being seen to near nil. I do really think that if nothing else ever changes, the default display method should become NEWEST messages first, so that new opinions are not drowned out an hour or two after a story goes up. I can't count the number of stories that I've felt a burning need to comment on but not bothered since there were already a couple of hundred posts.
- Unwillingness to nuke abuses. I'm a very outspoken proponent of free speech, but only insofar as we're talking about the *government* regulating speech. As a private organization (of sorts), Slashdot, or any other site, is perfectly within everyone's rights to decide what is and is not appropriate. There's free speech, and then there's bullshit. I mean really, if some AC (or registered user, for that matter) posted a message that looked, in it's entirety, about like this:
FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK
I mean, what use is that? That's not productive discussion, it's a waste of bandwidth. What's more, if that were a reply, the subject line could be used to disguise it as a real post, so that the hapless reader this moron is abusing didn't know it until the time and bandwidth had already been wasted. As it is, the default threshold is 0, and most worthless posts get taken down to -1 pretty quickly. But oftimes, since I browse at 2 for a quick "Reader's Digest" version of the comments, I'll want to get into more detail and click the "XX replies below your current threshold" link. Unfortunately, when I do so, I get all the -1 "you suck", "get out, Katz!", and "first post!" BS right alongside the worthwhile 0's and 1's. I really think there is a case for just outright nuking some of the really abusive and pointless posts, but I think the priveledge to do it should be very restricted. Say, all those with story posting priveledges and 50 or so of those they trust. A log of nuked posts could be generated and examined by Rob and Jeff to look for abuses of nuking. Anyway, just a suggestion.
And now for some thoughts on flame itself. When I had an article of mine published on OS Opinion, I was prepared to be disagreed with (it was a very controversial view). But I was not prepared for the medium-well roasting I received. It truly laid heavy on my soul, making me feel as stupid as the flamers truly were. But the encouraging words of a few intelligent respondents were, as Katz has repeatedly related, enough to keep me going and convince me I wasn't horribly in the wrong. This experience taught me the same fear and respect for flame as one should have for power tools and firearms: it can kill you, but not if you treat it correctly. But I digress. My real view is that flame is important to our evolution as people who interact with others. From everywhere I am bombarded by images and stories of people who are far far far too sensitive, and the U.S.'s illness of rampant litigation can turn a petty insult or spot of poor service into a multi-million dollar issue. People really need to realize that they don't have the right to not be offended. That's what free speech is all about, being able to say whatever you want as long as it does not endanger anyone. If I say "fuck" aloud out on the street, there's no way anyone, not even a parent with a small child, can reasonably claim that I've done them any harm. Anyone who says otherwise really doesn't have their priorities straight. But I'm somewhat afraid to do just that, for fear that some numbnuts with a lawyer will accuse me of violating their personal linguistic space or whatever and sue me for a million or ten. In short, it is the right of any online community to moderate and/or nuke flames, but the users and proprietors of any such system should think it over carefully, because flame is not 100% without value (if nothing else, it's often funny).
MoNsTeR
Re:Katz's atheist prejudices are showing again. (Score:2)
Some anonymous coward dun said:
In all probability, the person was trolling...I hope they were trolling, anyways (as I've not noticed too much "Christian-bashing"--constructive criticism of the more fundamentalist flavours, sure, but not outright BASHING).
Assuming they weren't trolling, though, there is something that a lot of you should realise about some of the more extreme fundy groups in the US. Specifically, a lot of them tend to use tactics with their flocks which are now recognised to be coercive. Some of them are even "Christianised" versions of the same coercive practices that Scientology uses.
One of the biggies in coercive fundy churches is a mix of a general "us versus them" theology with something called "deliverance ministry". The general gist is that they believe anyone who is not in their church or circle is by definition a literal Satanist (because they aren't a raving fundy--yes, this covers atheists, because they're "trying to deny God's dominion"), and (in the churches that practice deliverance ministry) persons trying to make you doubt in the church are literally posessed by demons, as well as "rebellious youth" (which could be as simple as a kid being gay or expressing doubts about fundamentalism) and others...and even one's own doubts about the church are the direct result of demons trying to posess or "oppress" one and such demons must be "exorcised" (this is VERY similar to the idea of "engrams" in Scientology; the "engrams" crap is regarded as possibly one of the most destructive coercive tactics in Scientology). Sometimes this even extends to the media--it is not uncommon to hear people who criticize the church to be described as "agents of Satan", and it's possible that the person who wrote that literally DOES see Katz as Satanic (a number of folks on Slashdot may think he Does Not Get It, and may think he needs to retire to the state mental home, but I don't think most of Slashdot literally sees Katz as an agent of Beelzebub Publishing Ltd.)...
In short, there is a fairly good chance that he may be in a very coercive "Bible-based cult", and literally has given up his mind to the church in a way. In a real sense he isn't totally under his own control, but could be said to be brainwashed...
A lot of info is at IFAS's Walk Away site [ifas.org], especially on groups that try to use the Bible to coerce their flocks...
(This is not to say that all Christians are coercive. A lot aren't. The more fundamentalist flavours do have a disturbing tendency as of late to resort to coercive tactics, but they don't represent all (or even most) Christians, just (unfortunately) the most vocal segment--as fundamentalists in all communities tend to do. :P)
(I also speak from a bit of experience, having been a walkaway for 14 years now from a "Bible-based" coercive group. In a way it lets me get more into his head, and I've known all too well what he's probably thinking; if anything, I feel pity for the poor guy. Somehow I think Yshua would be more accepting, and sometimes I fear that if he DID come back they'd just kill the poor fella all over again and 2000 years down the road we'd wear little electric chairs or M-16's on our necks. :P)
Re: auto-content-filtering (Score:2)
When I walk down the street, or go to work, or go shopping, I typically don't have to deal with people insulting me (or other passersby) because of the shirt I wear, the way I walk, or whatever. But venture online, and all of a sudden I'm forced to devote a portion of my valuable thinking to filtering out this crud.
The point is not that it's possible to do so - obviously Katz is capable of dealing with flames, or he would have retired from writing for Slashdot long ago
It's an interesting question, and that's why Katz wrote about it.
Sponge
Re:Extra Information (Score:2)
Considering that a 15 year old had enough intelligence to hack DVD, something that has been considered quite important on Slashdot, a person stating that he doesn't want to read anything by a 14 year old student strikes me as odd. Strangely enough, somehow when that same student becomes a 35 year old Sys Admin he suddenly gets an opinion that matters. At least that's what I'm getting out of the comment I just read.
I can understand people believing that and saying it, but I never thought it would be moderated up.
Jon. I would like to thank you. I've obviously been mistaken as to what kind of people Slashdot attracted. After having set my threshold at 3, I still see noise, flaming, and a number of replies that don't seem to have anything to do with what you've written.
If anyone knows of a better place, please, check out my previous replies and decide for yourself if you would like to invite me. Slashdot just isn't cutting it anymore.
-----
Want to reply? Don't know HTML? No problem. [virtualsurreality.com]
Re:An interesting theory... (Score:2)
No, this is pure fudging. Think about it mathematically. This is just a shift of origin without any real effect except to decrease the range of possible moderation scores (0 to 5 instead of -1 to 5), which in turn has the direct effect of decreasing the resolution of moderation system.
There's also the little problem of disagreements by moderators on the scoring of the posts: if someone gives the poster too high a score, you can't moderate him down again.
Flamewars and Duelling (Score:2)
In my opinion, a flamewar serves a similar purpose, that is, that neither party expects to actaully accomplish anything, other than to preserve her good name, by demonstrating her willingness to fight for it.
This sort of behavior undoubtedly magnifies any insult anyone has recieved, by causing a simple you're stupid to escalate into a back-and-forth exchange of heated comemnts.
So that's perhaps half of why the net seems so much more hostile than "real life". What remains is, are people more likely to insult each other online?
IMNSHO, no What is different about the net is it is, at least in such forums as slashdot, usenet, and mailing lists, a many-to-many forum of communication. Thus, if person A tells person B they're stupid, there's several hundred, to several thousand witnesses. If, on the other hand, person A tells person B they're stupid on the street corner there's more likely a dozen witnesses. Thus, on the net, each incidence of hostility is witnessed by far more people.
Certainly there are many-to-many communication forums in "real life", and many are often *more* acrimonious than life on the net (where the regulars are better adjusted). Try a talk show, or a PTA or zoning board meeting.
People just don't always get along. Just on the net, you get to watch, and they don't take their argument to a more private venue...
I AM NOT TROLLING (Score:2)
Re:Your "science" was created by Christians. (Score:2)
This is not news for nerds. (Score:3)
Normally when a comment starts with that subject it's a flame. This is not a flame, read on.
This is Katz's third installment of a column where he defends his right to write for slashdot from a whole lot of people who don't think he should, some more intellectually than others. JonKatz's right to post is not news, it's not for nerds, and it really doesn't need to have a whole column dedicated to it. The cluebie sign reads "take it to private email."
JonKatz will not take it to email, because he is a sensationalist author who needs this kind of drivel to promote his work.
Katz continues to deny that there is any possibility that his opposition might have even one thing right about him. If you deny the validity of any opposition you deny the validity of your own argument. Katz writes:
But the founders of this site never meant for Slashdot to be an exclusive club for programmers using a particular computer operating system.An obvious poke at people who don't like Katz's use of Windows. Here's another clue, on slashdot, no one knows what OS you use. Unless you know me, you probably don't know what OS I use. I happen to use linux, but not as my primary operating system, and not as what I'm writing in right now. Oh no! No one knows what operating system you use unless you tell them. The complaint about Katz's OS comes from his decision to tell us by using mangled HTML and nonstandard characters. This is a totally valid complaint, and you SHOULD expect better from slashdot. I wouldn't tolerate a book that was published in this format, would you? I'm amazed CmdrTaco and the slashdot editors allowed this to begin with.
Katz says nothing in his recent articles. He has nothing to say and isn't very good at being insightful. I've been trying to catch up on slashdot tonight and I'm tired so I'll just make a few comments:
Communities naturally tend to exclude some people and make others feel welcome.Hurray for ethnocentrism and stereotyping. Please do not take out your frustrations with your own culture on the rest of the world and call it "natural."
Adolescent males are hungry for attention and peer approval.
Note even more ethnocentrism. This would sound really great next to a quote from one of JonKatz's essays on the evils of profiling, but I haven't got one. Anyway, it seems Katz has changed his mind about profiling kids.
Should we be concerned that entire social groups - women, newcomers - don't feel welcome here?
I'd REALLY like to see some evidence for this. In the second part of this series there was a large thread about black people and women being slashdot readers. We need statistics before anyone can make sweeping comments like this. Slashdot offers total anonymity and transparency. No one has to know who you are, or even that you're reading. I see no reason why slashdot should necessarily cause people to not feel welcome.
An entire generation has grown up learning how to communicate viscerally and impulsively, which is both exciting and creative. They also take no responsibility for what they say, and learn to think impulsively and instinctively.
If there's one thing slashdot has done which I approve of greatly, it's create a forum where the media has to take responsibility for what they post - or be demonstrated wrong by readers. With rare exceptions like the Sengan incident, no news post on slashdot does not appear without the ability to post responses to that article and say "HEY, you're wrong, here's why..."
As for his suggestions:
More moderation. Require all members to moderate discussions.
What kind of freedom is this? All this will ever do is dilute the efficiency of the moderation system and make slashdot membership a burden (not that it would last very long). I like the infrequent moderation point awarding system.
Innovate. Could sites have "free-fire" zones, areas designated for posters who want absolute freedom, but that others can avoid if they wish?
This sounds like Microsoft's idea of innovation. Anyone who was around in the days when BBSes were at their zenith knows that flame pits are not a new idea. Maybe you only have to remember the internet longer than 3 years ago. While "free-fire zones" or flame forums or whatever you name them can be fun for a while, I've never seen them be very effective in moving drivel away from the "on-topic" zones nor get people to channel their hostility to them. I don't see why slashdot should serve as a room with padded walls for those who want one.
Not as anonymous as you think. (Score:2)
Women tend to use more passive-tense language. It is well documented in sociolinguistic studies, and the tendencies persist in written communication as well as in spoken communication. They are more likely to use tentative language, offering suggestions and looking for consensus ('don't you think?' 'do you agree?' and 'please don't be mad at me') than men are. There's some evidence that this is fairly cross-cultural, that women actually think in a way that is more attuned to the social environment, but I'm sure there's a good amount of socialization involved, as well.
Ethnic and age differences are usually more subtle, and often complex (educated black people often show a *stricter* adherence to rules of grammar and usage, and try to affect near-Oxonian discourse, in order to combat the stereotypes of black people as uneducated, of urban black english as 'wrong,' of black intellectuals as unrigorous, etc.)
Re:Online Gaming (Score:2)
-- Or you mean the client prediction problem of your UO guy no-clipped into something, than teleport-no-clipped to some place else.
-- To bring it back to topic. It is *stupid* to read and write articles about "how games / whatever sucks for chick"
-- All that crap R & D your marketing dept. tell you to throw at "make chick like your games" you can throw another coder to write some better client prediction code. Then guys *and* chicks like you more.
-- One step at a time folks. Forget about this whole "make chicks like our games!" "make computers good for chicks!"
-- Man, computers, OS, online games
P.S. Apologies to being a little sarcastic about the whole client-side prediction thing. This is what I am coding now, and I know more than anyone it is admirable whenever someone does a "decent" job.
I am just trying to make a sarcastic point that we shouldn't waste our attention to such pointless crap about a coupla of flames here and there, when OS really sucks, they are really fat, game developers have trouble getting the right content
My final solution and protest to all this eye-sore chick crap is to completely turn off news.
I'd rather not read any
Re:An example (Score:2)
The problem is similar to usenet killfiles... if there's some ubiquitous poster that you can't stand, you can hide *their* postings easily enough but you can't hide the comments on them very easily. (It would be really cool if people would learn to stop swilling up the flamebait and responding in kind, but I haven't seen any signs of this happening yet).
Funny, that's what I always wonder about the guys in the Minus One Club.Katz, I'm afraid really is for real, and really is resoundingly hollow.