So she’s basically a really smart person with spot-on analysis who is also a pathetic whiner and perpetual victim. You sound a great deal like members of a particular group that’s gotten a lot of mention lately with respect to trollies/driving trollies.
RTFA already:
Balancing free expression with privacy and the protection of participants has always been a challenge for open-content platforms on the Internet. But that balancing act is getting harder. The trolls are winning.
(Emphasis mine)
That's not hinting, that's making a pretty clear statement. Further:
We were naive in our initial expectations for the Internet, an early Internet pioneer told me recently. We focused on the huge opportunity for positive interaction and information sharing. We did not understand how people could use it to harm others.
For a pathetic whiner perpetual victim, I thought she made her point pretty well.
That’s basically what I meant by “refusing to have one’s buttons pushed”. Doing it “4 teh lullz” suggests that these people relish eliciting strong emotional reactions from people. And they get them, time and again. Of course I am not suggesting that they can or should be forced to argue anything in good faith. But if they don’t get the buzz of the reaction they want, they eventually tire and/or leave. The mature people still get to have an adult conversation, and those who can’t handle it might learn something. I think of it as a form of Socratic method.
The real exercise in futility is giving trollies an emotional reaction, and then hoping that they’ll leave. It’s like blood in shark-infested waters, whereas rational discourse tends to be more like shark repellent.
Saying that I “hesitate to admit” already stacks your side of that discussion, because you are framing it as being the more legitimate perspective. Not unlike when somebody prefaces their opinion with “Let’s be honest…” The implication is that those who disagree with it are not being honest - with either the other parties of the conversation, or even themself. It is a common rhetorical device which many employ without being aware of. A person entertaining your argument in no way assures that they might agree with it. If you recall that Dylann Roof topic, I went to some lengths in efforts to clarify my position. My opinion being (apparently) unpopular does not indicate that it was offered in bad faith, nor that my offering an unpopular opinion for discussion was unproductive.
It is not a helpful way for them to react! I believe that people are innately due some amount of respect, and those who try to engage and understand are due even more respect. But this is what I meant about people not liking free speech - completely open, unmoderated conversations - as much as they supposed they might. Social life seems to be, to a large extent, confrontational. These confrontations can be good, bad, or indifferent. If people are attacking you and you hope to block it out because “I shouldn’t have to deal with this” is understandable. But it is also unrealistic to expect a favorable outcome from this. Don’t hang around in a room with millions of strangers if you need everybody to like you. One of people’s greatest quandaries is the desire for attention, for recognition - but this can backfire.
This is quite far from my experience. trollies do not want to debate. That’s probably why they prefer accosting people with nonsense. Not unlike common bigots, they typically cannot argue a clear point to save their lives. It more often comes down to tribalism and predicable emotional games. Debate is not a shouting match, it is about people being able to articulate and consider each others positions.
Why do you assume that I want them to act in any certain way? People can do what they choose. I am trying to be more like a “personal trainer”, informing people that there are predictable attacks, defenses, and consequences. Like any other form of self defense, it takes practice. It can even become almost fun, in its own sort of way. For example, I enjoy daily martial arts practice with my friends, but I would definitely not want to get into real fights every day. But if it does happen, I am better prepared for it.
Sure, those who avoid exposing themselves to the public in the first place. Some people always have it like this, such as artists and politicians. People who always put themselves out there, and sometimes generate shitstorms of controversy, even when they don’t mean to. The main difference is that 50 years ago, your average US person did not have much of a “public self”, except perhaps knowing a few dozen neighbors or townspeople. That has changed.
First, sorry you’re right I was venting. I apologize.
But, yes she is a smart person who is also a whiner. CEO’s are not supposed to whine. I’m not arguing she can be very useful in a tech/entrepreneurial role, but she should not be running things. I’ve seen this many times, someone is really smart and they have their eyes on the CEO (or LP at a big firm like Kleiner). And what happens is they will usually get a shot at it, because despite her complaints about gender bias, smart people, especially women, can rise very quickly. The problem is if they rise over their abilities, then they get into trouble. The further problem is if they continue to think their abilities are higher than their actual performance, then you get Ellen Pao.
Not arguing that she’s smart. But I think (my opinion, feel free to differ) she got into more than one role that was over her head.
Do you hear Elon Musk whining? Running basically 3 companies (Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity)? When you’re in charge, you need to take charge and take responsibility for failure. China took a major dump for Tesla, Musk fired the country manager and put in a new plan. He didn’t complain that the economy in China was hurting Corp sales. For Pao saying that at Kleiner they demoted her because she was a woman - then at Reddit, the trolls did her in. You may not like to hear this, but in the leadership role, it is NOT ok to say that.
Actually you’re the second person to call me out on venting, and you’re both right. Sorry about that.
You got my point, even though it was over the top.
Here’s where you can help me: there are (or were) very few enforced rules on Reddit, so saying that “the troll are winning” is not productive. Prior to that, suing Kleiner, losing, suing for legal costs, losing. At what point do you call this behavior out?
Got it. Your ideal situation is literally to force people off of the internet.
You have taken the side of the trollies - that anyone unwilling to play their game - or rather, YOUR game - should be forced offline, should “get out of public”. That if they aren’t willing to suffer abuse and hatred constantly, then they don’t deserve to have a life.
Your repeated brushing aside of terrorism as “no big deal”, of attacking victims, and defending the abusers, has become all too clear. An actual debate is impossible with you, because you have no concern for anyone other than yourself. The opinions, emotions, and lives of other people appear to be completely inconsequential to you.
Sorry, but the internet is going to exist for more than people like you who get a thrill out of fighting with others. The internet is going to - needs to - exist as a thing to be usable for people who don’t want to suffer daily, personal abuse. If you have a problem with that, then you are the one who needs to get off the internet, because you make it worse for everyone else.
When your “free speech” involves sending hateful emails, and “being against free speech” involves ignoring them, then I am totally for the destruction of free speech - as would any decent human being be.
See, I would call this “avoidance”, which you specifically said was not the correct approach. Perhaps it’s merely a semantic disagreement at this point, because I don’t really find anything to disagree with in your response here. The following, in particular, is spot-on:
Well, surely I think my perspective is more legitimate – you haven’t convinced me of your perspective for any number of reasons, and anything I have to say on the subject is going to reflect that fact.
No, I’m not trying to imply that. In fact, I tried to be specific that I didn’t think you were driving trollies at all, that you were representing yourself fairly.
What I’m saying is that I didn’t get the sense that you engaged rebuttals to your position in good faith. That is, you didn’t seem (to me, obviously) to seriously consider them, or give any coherent sense of what was wrong with those rebuttals.
In that case, rather than butt my head against a wall, I think my best option is to disengage. If you don’t want to seriously consider a rebuttal for whatever reason (including that you simply don’t think it’s cogent or coherent enough to warrant a strong response), that is absolutely your prerogative.
And indeed, I never argued either. Again, I argued only that insisting that you respond to my rebuttals would be unproductive.
“The trollies are winning” seemed to me to be a sort of “state of the internet” statement, not one specifically about Reddit. She seemed to me to be talking about Reddit simply as symptomatic of the larger state of discourse on the internet. I think most of her arguments on these lines are pretty defensible.
I can’t conclude on the basis that she lost the case that it was frivolous. There’s many other explanations for why she might have lost the case and have to pay fees. Moreover, I don’t really care. That’s between her and Kleiner; if you think that she was in the wrong, then it seems to me that you might as well just give yourself a satisfied little pat on the back seeing as justice was apparently served in this case. Losing a few hundred thousand dollars trying to bring suit and then having to pay costs for the parties you sued seems to me a sufficient punishment for any wrongdoing Pao might have engaged in in that case. I’m not sure “calling the behavior out” is really going to add much to losing that much money.
Note that I didn’t object to your conclusions, just the fact that you used a “professional victim” ad hominem in the course of arguing for them.
I don’t believe in “sides”, which is why I am so annoying. But you are putting words in my mouth here. I suggest refusing to play trollies games, having more formal discourse and refusing to play emotional games. You also disregard where I explained that I think people should be treated with respect, perhaps because you are more interested in characterising me as a certain kind of person, rather than replying to what I actually say.
I would say that your reading comprehension is lacking. It gets tiresome explaining myself ad infinitum to people who cannot be bothered to refute my statements, and instead make me out as saying else in hopes of bolstering whatever point they are trying to make.
Why do you assume that I am concerned for myself? I have even dedicated quite a few posts to explaining why I think “self” is over-rated, and even a waste of time. But since you read enough of my posts to tar me with such a wide brush, you must surely be aware of this…
Why do you assume this? Why do you assume that there is any fundamental difference between my “self”
and another “self”? How would you possibly assume, based upon anything I have ever said, that what anybody does is in any way “inconsequential”?
So “any decent human being” is one who happens to agree with your position, I suppose that is convenient. And yet some people (ie YOU) tell me that I am self-centered… And no, again, I never suggested ignoring anybody. I suggested refuting abusers with calm, deliberate reason. Which is neither ignorance, nor invitation to abuse. It means “cooler heads will prevail”.
Never suggesting ignoring people is the problem. It is 100% inviting abuse.
But let’s try to clarify, just so I 100% know where you stand, and there’s no miscommunication:
I have a friend who once spoke online very openly about their own disabilities and their abusive parents on their blog. They got featured on a subreddit (one that another person in a previous debate has DEFENDED here!) where they were mocked, and to this day they still get messages telling them that they should kill themselves, sometimes by people who are outright, literal Nazis profession eugenics, and others just grown adults who get a kick in harassing disabled teens for their own fucked up pleasure.
How do you think this person should respond? Should they try to “debate” these abusers, or just ignore and report the messages? How do you think reddit should respond? Should the people on this subreddit be allowed to continue to harass? How should the company that runs the blog where my friend is harassed respond? Should they ban the harassers, or not?
Where does she state that she lost/left her position at Reddit due to the trolls?
She spends some time talking about how she continued working at Reddit while being attacked by trolls, so I don’t think you can just automatically make the inference you’re making.
It may not be stated outright, but the link for “driving trollies attacks in history” describes the circumstance of Pao’s resignation. This isn’t an outright statement by Pao that she resigned as CEO because of the petition, but it’s definitely what the Washington Post is trying to imply.
So why am I leaving? Ultimately, the board asked me to demonstrate higher user growth in the next six months than I believe I can deliver while maintaining reddit’s core principles.
I asked where Pao said it, not where WaPo said it.
There is no 100% one-size-fits-all solution for dealing with people who you don’t know. Also, although I am interested in how “social media” sites handle difficulties, I have not used Reddit myself. So there might be particularities to it that I am unaware of.
I treat PMs differently from group topics. I recommend replying to possible trollies in group topics for several reasons. There are witnesses. And somebody might learn something. Abusive PMs I would try ignoring for a while to see what happens. It’s probably not worth their while to bait the same people over and over with no payback. Maybe I might reply to their first PM with a reasoned reply and tell them that no further replies will be read. It might not be entirely obvious if a PM is from a trolley or not until they say something.
Rhetorically, I try to make trollies use their head. If I simply tell them that they are awful, they love it. If instead they need to do any introspection or articulate anything, they get bored. So if I was cornered into needing to reply to some crank who suggested that I kill myself, I would ask them to explain themselves, but be extremely matter-of-fact about it, and avoid any strong reactions. “Why should I?”, “How do I live?”, “I feel like what?” - this needling of theirs is how they look for what buttons they can push. Then the kind of response which is the best bucket of icewater to the groin is the most “meh”, unimpressed, unmoved that you can. But don’t interact with them any more than you need to.
As for reporting, I am kind of weird about that. I report straight-up spam, bogus accounts using the site to post ads. But I only bother to report abusive posters if they flood or have severe verbal diarrhoea.
I agree that threats and harassment are real problems, but getting them addressed suffers in several areas. Firstly, people often don’t act upon reports and enforce the rules. And just as badly, threats and harassment are often very poorly defined. Even legally. In my state, harassment means, basically, whatever you think it does. But this lack of specificity also discourages people from prosecuting it. When the rules are kept vague, enforcement suffers. The best way to handle these is to make them explicit, so that there is no doubt. For threats, that might mean asking them to clarify what exactly they are getting at - being vaguely menacing often doesn’t get enforcement action as a threat. For harassment, this means telling them explicitly that you forbid them from contacting you again.
How the company handles this depends of course upon their own terms. If they prohibit users from harassment and threats, then they are completely obligated to act upon complaints. I would contact people further into the company hierarchy to bring such instances to their attention. Of course, if its really bad, they might be swamped with crank communications themselves. And even is their TOS does not prohibit threats and harassment, there are good chances that it is still illegal anyway. But it is probably not easy to get police to act upon it, because there are so many instances with such little real-world (non-internet) evidence. Which is kind of bullshit, since LEOs are always eager to do more internet surveilance - but only for “glamorous” stuff like drugs and terrorism that they milk for more budget.
What social media companies should do, I think, is to define terms such as “threats”, “harassment”, “inflammatory speech”, etc far more carefully. Rules need to be specific. Maybe find ways to reward users for being more topical, and less sensational. To focus more upon the quality of communication rather than statistical likes/dislikes, upvotes/downvotes - these just encourage people to get reactions. They should ban those who refuse to abide their terms of usage and conduct, but these need to be drafted first to protect the user, instead of legal boilerplate existing only to protect the company itself.
Well, I think it’s implicit in the op ed. Did she come out and say that was the reason for her being let go? No, you’re right. But it sounds like this piece was meant to put a positive spin on the situation. Do you disagree?
Well, let’s be fair - the “PR” version is rarely the real version behind closed doors. I think we are free to speculate that the troll situation was indeed a big problem, and very high on the list of reasons for the change.
I read the Reddit board AMA, and these too were talking points, not many direct answers.
