Expressing Your Opinion and Getting Digitally Lynched

[Perfection]

Why are we talking about these instances of whataboutism when there are so many worse ones to choose from?

 

[Commodore]

It even happens here at CFC:OT. Someone will say something, and someone disagrees and a number of people will jump on them for it, and we then lose the ability to have a conversation about the topic. It becomes a death match with four or five people ganging up on the poster. It's been happening constantly since last summer, and it is very undesirable as it makes OT an inhospitable place

I think this problem could be mitigated somewhat if "dogpiling" were added to the list of infractable offenses here. Much stricter moderation as well as adding more moderators might help as well. I think most would then stop the undesired behavior and those that don't will eventually get themselves banned.

To keep this more on topic though, the above suggestions are something that needs to be done across the entire internet somehow. People act in such a horrendous manner on the internet because the internet is still a place where there largely aren't any consequences for that behavior. That's why I've been coming around to the idea that anonymity should not be allowed on the internet. Every forum, site, or social media platform that a person becomes a member of should be required by law to have that membership somehow tied to their real life identity. Doing so would go a long way towards establishing the same social pressures online that keep people from behaving like that in face-to-face interactions.

I think such laws would pass legal muster in the US as well. The argument could certainly be made that, legally, the internet qualifies as a public space and the law holds that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space. So in my opinion, the moment you connect yourself to the internet, you lose any reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I think this problem could be mitigated somewhat if "dogpiling" were added to the list of infractable offenses here. Much stricter moderation as well as adding more moderators might help as well. I think most would then stop the undesired behavior and those that don't will eventually get themselves banned.

Where do you draw the line between dogpiling and several people agreeing? It should be easy to tell where a dogpile is happening, yet some people deny it's happening when the evidence is right in front of them.

To keep this more on topic though, the above suggestions are something that needs to be done across the entire internet somehow. People act in such a horrendous manner on the internet because the internet is still a place where there largely aren't any consequences for that behavior. That's why I've been coming around to the idea that anonymity should not be allowed on the internet. Every forum, site, or social media platform that a person becomes a member of should be required by law to have that membership somehow tied to their real life identity. Doing so would go a long way towards establishing the same social pressures online that keep people from behaving like that in face-to-face interactions.

This is the reason the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) brought in a "real names" policy a few years ago. The result was...

Numerous people skating past it with obviously phony names (most of the characters from the Archie comics, Star Trek: The Next Generation, numerous American sitcoms, and a dead Canadian Prime Minister).

That said, I don't use my real name on that site. Considering that my political views are very out of step with what's considered socially acceptable in this region, I'd be an idiot to put my real name on my posts there.

The name I use there is real-sounding - enough so that I've had some revolting posts thrown at me to "go back to your own country" (apparently the ones who post such comments think I'm from somewhere in India or the Middle East - my username is a minor character from a favorite novel that most people haven't read so they don't recognize it). It's amusing to tell them that I already am in my own country, although I acknowledge it wouldn't be amusing for people who really do experience ethnic slurs like this.

The real-names rule on that site hasn't stopped the negativity and bigotry. The very worst is gone, but that's due to stricter moderation (and there's a 'mute' feature so anyone who really annoys me enough to make me want to tell them where to go and what to do when they get there can just be put on mute and I can forget they even exist). Things got really bad during and right after the 2015 federal election, when the Reformacons declared open season on Justin Trudeau's family - his mother and half-sister in particular.

I think such laws would pass legal muster in the US as well. The argument could certainly be made that, legally, the internet qualifies as a public space and the law holds that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space. So in my opinion, the moment you connect yourself to the internet, you lose any reasonable expectation of privacy.

Alrighty, you first. RL name, please.

No?

Okay, then.


I'm fairly open about my RL situation, at least on sites I either trust or when I deem it necessary. But even so, thank goodness I have several namesakes who aren't me. Stalking is a thing that happens online, and anyone looking for photos of me won't find any. Even the person holding my cat (Chloe, not Maddy) in the one photo I've posted of her isn't me.

 

[red_elk]

Please explain.

If you criticize other sides as being "bad" for doing the same things as US did before, then "whataboutism" is a convenient way to dismiss counterarguments, in some cases valid ones.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Where do you draw the line between dogpiling and several people agreeing?

Generally it's the tenor of the surrounding conversation that is useful for diagnosing a dogpiling. But that has the drawback of being very difficult to define and regulate. It is not easy to distinguish genuine, good-faith disagreement and dogpiling.

Making things muddier, you will get bad faith actors who will use 'likes' as prime evidence of dogpiling after someone shuts them down for claiming hitler wasn't that bad or otherwise try and define any posts that disagree with them as dogpiling.

 

[Synobun]

"The majority disagrees with me. Clearly there is conspiracy afoot."

 

[Commodore]

Numerous people skating past it with obviously phony names (most of the characters from the Archie comics, Star Trek: The Next Generation, numerous American sitcoms, and a dead Canadian Prime Minister

Names aren't the only way to identify people. It is well within the realm of technological possibility to establish a system where people have to register any device that can connect to the internet in a similar way one has to register their car. When doing that, you will have to prove that you are who you say you are, and that device will be tied to your identity.

And to ensure that everyone registers their devices, there could be a law that forces all sites to implement code that denies access to any device that isn't registered. So people will either have to give up their internet anonymity or be cut off from it entirely.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It is well within the realm of technological possibility to establish a system where people have to register any device that can connect to the internet in a similar way one has to register their car. When doing that, you will have to prove that you are who you say you are, and that device will be tied to your identity.

This sounds plausible until every smooth surface becomes an internet-connected screen. At that point, what constitutes a 'device' becomes problematic.

I read a scene in a book where a guy's pack of cigarettes lights up with an internet browser (and of course ads to buy more cigarettes) and it blew my mind.

 

[Broken_Erika]

This sounds plausible until every smooth surface becomes an internet-connected screen. At that point, what constitutes a 'device' becomes problematic.

Smart toilets that only work for one person......

 

[Synobun]

Please drink your Mountain Dew® Verification Can™ before continuing.

 

[red_elk]

Smart toilets that only work for one person......

Unauthorized user detected. Activating security protocol...

 

[Patine]

I think this problem could be mitigated somewhat if "dogpiling" were added to the list of infractable offenses here. Much stricter moderation as well as adding more moderators might help as well. I think most would then stop the undesired behavior and those that don't will eventually get themselves banned.

To keep this more on topic though, the above suggestions are something that needs to be done across the entire internet somehow. People act in such a horrendous manner on the internet because the internet is still a place where there largely aren't any consequences for that behavior. That's why I've been coming around to the idea that anonymity should not be allowed on the internet. Every forum, site, or social media platform that a person becomes a member of should be required by law to have that membership somehow tied to their real life identity. Doing so would go a long way towards establishing the same social pressures online that keep people from behaving like that in face-to-face interactions.

I think such laws would pass legal muster in the US as well. The argument could certainly be made that, legally, the internet qualifies as a public space and the law holds that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public space. So in my opinion, the moment you connect yourself to the internet, you lose any reasonable expectation of privacy.

You know, I never started an account on Facebook. I do not exist on that social media at all. I have never signed in or tried to create an account. Do you why? I'll Mark Zuckerberg. He and his sister, Randi Zuckerberg, had the same dystopian idea (and, yes, I use the word "dystopian" advisedly) that you do. Pretty much exactly. I termed him as a "Big Brother," in the making (as in the Orwellian character). He was born in 1984, too, though that's certainly complete coincidence. But such an Internet-wise paradigm would scare me to Hell - possibly even making me unplug my Internet connection. There are certain radical "cancellation culture Progressive" AND far-right-wing, reactionary sites (a few on each site that do this vile tactic), of digging up (often through illegal means), the real name, address, and phone number of other people on the Internet they real don't like and to see brought low, and wait to see what consequences in RL happen because this information is dropped. I do agree, there does need to be constructive solution to bad Internet behaviour, but NOT such dystopian, police state, utter violations of privacy. How can you POSSIBLY see that as making the situation any BETTER?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Names aren't the only way to identify people. It is well within the realm of technological possibility to establish a system where people have to register any device that can connect to the internet in a similar way one has to register their car. When doing that, you will have to prove that you are who you say you are, and that device will be tied to your identity.

And to ensure that everyone registers their devices, there could be a law that forces all sites to implement code that denies access to any device that isn't registered. So people will either have to give up their internet anonymity or be cut off from it entirely.

You are aware that many people who use the internet do so in public places like libraries and internet cafes, right?

And I can see it now: Forget to register your new car, fridge, portable vacuum robot, home security, or electronic garbage can, and your life is screwed.

This is a policy that would make meaningful life impossible for marginalized people.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It's been happening constantly since last summer, and it is very undesirable as it makes OT an inhospitable place.

Can't say I particularly noticed any change last summer. Hasn't it just always been like that round here?

Where do you draw the line between dogpiling and several people agreeing? It should be easy to tell where a dogpile is happening, yet some people deny it's happening when the evidence is right in front of them.

A mutual 'Like'-fest is usually a good indicator.

 

[Gorbles]

A mutual 'Like'-fest is usually a good indicator.

Why should people feel the need to not use a forum feature, just because you feel like it corresponds to some kind of "gang" mentality? We're getting to the point where "repeatedly being corrected" is synonymous with being "digitally lynched" (that language isn't on you, just to be clear) and uh given how there is literally no equivalent to being digitally lynched because said posters are still here, still posting, and not dead (sorry, but that's in the thread title, I'm just running with it) it smacks of exaggeration of the highest order.

I've had multiple people correct me before, on here. Gang up on me, even. I mean, maybe it's because I don't particularly mind (or if I do, I express it relative to the argument at hand), but it only seems to be claimed to be a problem by certain posters.

Should I raise it? Would it do any good if I raised it? Would anything change?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

A mutual 'Like'-fest is usually a good indicator.

I think most "likes" are genuinely meant as a gesture of good will.

And then there are the ones given purely to spite the person being criticized or ganged-up on.

There are times when the latter is sometimes difficult to pin down, but others when it's as plain as a neon billboard.

 

[Estebonrober]

A mutual 'Like'-fest is usually a good indicator.

Reality has a liberal bias and thus mutual like fests are inevitable.

 

[BCheek]

Theres nothing wrong with consensus however I'd say that dogpiling someone when you aren't adding anything new to the conversation doesnt contribute anything to the discussion. If the intent is to berate someone or force a consensus with whom you disagree, that kind of behavior is really unnecessary. It makes this place rather hostile toward people who you may agree with strongly on a wide variety of other topics.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Am i the only one who reads the title as "Exercising Your Onion and Getting Diagonally Launched"?

 

[Estebonrober]

Theres nothing wrong with consensus however I'd say that dogpiling someone when you aren't adding anything new to the conversation doesnt contribute anything to the discussion. If the intent is to berate someone or force a consensus with whom you disagree, that kind of behavior is really unnecessary. It makes this place rather hostile toward people who you may agree with strongly on a wide variety of other topics.

It happen on occasion, but seems exaggerated here, like with Patine. Some of us take exception to his derailment of threads and get collective about the annoyance of it.