Slashdot Log In
Please Die3: The Abuse of Freedom
from the Hostile-Environments dept.
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.
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.
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.
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?
--
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.
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.
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!
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:Extra Information (Score:3)
Point is, there are intelligent 14 year olds and idiotic 35 year old sysadmins, and everything else everywhere.
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?
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)
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:Been there, done that. (Score:3)
I've never had to remove an individual, but I have censored certain postings of theirs. This is very rare though.
As for Moderators, increasing the # of moderators just means the new moderators will then feel as though they are justified in voting with thier politics.
I've never moderated someone on
Remember the net might be democratic, but personal servers don't need to be. Ya come into my house, if I don't like what ya are saying, I can ask ya to be quiet or show ya the door.
clif
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.
---
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: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.
--
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
--
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.
Once more, with feeling. *SIGH* (Score:3)