Thursday, December 28, 2017
Political Mayhem Thursday: The insidious internet
The internet can be an ugly, ugly place. With a cloak of anonymity, some people become utterly malicious, intent on insulting, demeaning and lying about people they don't like. It's a phenomenon that has driven some wonderful writers from their task.
It's probably time to face facts, too: Melania Trump just might not be the right person to take on internet bullying.
So, what to do? Here are some options:
1) The platforms themselves--especially Twitter and Facebook--could be more aggressive in policing their forums and weeding out people who are just plain nasty. The problem is that it is difficult to develop objective standards to do this, which can consistently discern strenuous debate from abuse.
2) We could allow and encourage other users to abuse the abusers. There was an intriguing New York Times piece about this yesterday, describing an effort to take on trolls who falsely assume the identity of prominent commentators and then make biased remarks in their name.
3) We could do nothing, and individually ignore them. I just don't read the comments to what I write anymore. There is a kind of revenge in that, I guess; some dork spent an hour crafting a string of insults that I never read. But that does not work for everyone, and some people care a lot more about what others think of them than I do. (being a prosecutor is good training for that--when you do the right thing, someone will always be mad at you and you learn to just let that be).
What do you think?
It's probably time to face facts, too: Melania Trump just might not be the right person to take on internet bullying.
So, what to do? Here are some options:
1) The platforms themselves--especially Twitter and Facebook--could be more aggressive in policing their forums and weeding out people who are just plain nasty. The problem is that it is difficult to develop objective standards to do this, which can consistently discern strenuous debate from abuse.
2) We could allow and encourage other users to abuse the abusers. There was an intriguing New York Times piece about this yesterday, describing an effort to take on trolls who falsely assume the identity of prominent commentators and then make biased remarks in their name.
3) We could do nothing, and individually ignore them. I just don't read the comments to what I write anymore. There is a kind of revenge in that, I guess; some dork spent an hour crafting a string of insults that I never read. But that does not work for everyone, and some people care a lot more about what others think of them than I do. (being a prosecutor is good training for that--when you do the right thing, someone will always be mad at you and you learn to just let that be).
What do you think?
Comments:
<< Home
Melania needs to reboot and pick a new 'cause'. One can't address on-line bullying when they are married to the worst culprit. Perhaps obesity and the evils of diet coke would be a better fit, although still personal.
So #1 would be challenged as a violation of ones first amendment rights. But we already click on language regarding "terms of use" that no one ever reads them. I suppose these could be altered and used to address the problem.
#2 lowers us to their level. Although if someone is posting in another's name their would probably legal avenues that would allow the removal of the posts and certainly defamation of character would come into play. But this falls to the person who was wronged to take the action so it would probably have to be very egregious to warrant action.
#3 ignoring and not reading... may be ok, but are you limiting yourself by not possibly seeing another perspective? I realize not all comments offer a new or insightful perspective.
I read comments on what could be viewed at controversial posts and recently have noticed people taking on the trolls. It is rather interesting and they are quite good. The thought occurred to me that perhaps these are trolls taking on trolls.
When did we sink this low?
So #1 would be challenged as a violation of ones first amendment rights. But we already click on language regarding "terms of use" that no one ever reads them. I suppose these could be altered and used to address the problem.
#2 lowers us to their level. Although if someone is posting in another's name their would probably legal avenues that would allow the removal of the posts and certainly defamation of character would come into play. But this falls to the person who was wronged to take the action so it would probably have to be very egregious to warrant action.
#3 ignoring and not reading... may be ok, but are you limiting yourself by not possibly seeing another perspective? I realize not all comments offer a new or insightful perspective.
I read comments on what could be viewed at controversial posts and recently have noticed people taking on the trolls. It is rather interesting and they are quite good. The thought occurred to me that perhaps these are trolls taking on trolls.
When did we sink this low?
With the fingerprint reader and face recognition capabilities of most smart phones, there must be a way to have a verified profile requirement. Perhaps a 3rd party site where you have to build our online persona, which you must use to comment on sites.
...Which would reduce the anonymity that allows small people to post hateful things they would never say in public. Thoughtful discord could continue without the fear of strangers saying things that derail the debate.
Christine-- I should make clear that I do read the comments on the Razor!
Gavin-- that's a really good idea.
Post a Comment
Gavin-- that's a really good idea.
<< Home
