21 votes

Reddit and the Struggle to Detoxify the Internet - How do we fix life online without limiting free speech?

21 comments

  1. [9]
    MindsRedMill
    Link
    The answer: we DO limit free speech. Its just about how, how much, and why.

    The answer: we DO limit free speech. Its just about how, how much, and why.

    18 votes
    1. [8]
      Bear
      Link Parent
      I must reluctantly agree. However, it's a question of exactly how we limit free speech that matters. For example, on almost any social media site, a person can be a troll with no repercussions,...

      I must reluctantly agree.

      However, it's a question of exactly how we limit free speech that matters.

      For example, on almost any social media site, a person can be a troll with no repercussions, because of anonymity.

      I would love to see that cloak of consequence-free anonymity removed, with everyone having to register with a central authority to set up an online persona, and part of that would involve having to show confirmed ID, including a confirmed physical address.

      They could still have semi-anonymous personas online - Such as "Bear" - But in the event of trolling, a site admin could reliably track those comments back to the source, and restrict/ban the real person. In the event of actual threats, that same information would make it much easier for law enforcement to prosecute the offender.

      For those who need anonymity because they fear for their lives, such as people reporting atrocities - This system would not work. But there has to be a way to accommodate them without giving everyone else too much freedom to troll.

      3 votes
      1. [6]
        ourari
        Link Parent
        https://qz.com/741933/internet-trolls-are-even-more-hostile-when-theyre-using-their-real-names-a-study-finds/ And from the study:

        https://qz.com/741933/internet-trolls-are-even-more-hostile-when-theyre-using-their-real-names-a-study-finds/

        In research published this June in the journal PLoS One, Stahel studied comments on online petitions published on a German social media platform between 2010 and 2013. The data included 532,197 comments on about 1,600 online petitions. Commentators could choose to be public or anonymous. Contrary to expectations, the commentators with the harshest words during mass public attacks were more likely to be the name-identified ones than the anonymous ones (less than a third of commentators kept their names private).

        And from the study:

        Results show that in the context of online firestorms, non-anonymous individuals are more aggressive compared to anonymous individuals. This effect is reinforced if selective incentives are present and if aggressors are intrinsically motivated.

        2 votes
        1. [5]
          Bear
          Link Parent
          That study was only dealing with people's names. I suggest linking it to a specific person, with a name and address, to definitively trace comments to a specific person. Accounts would be solely...

          That study was only dealing with people's names. I suggest linking it to a specific person, with a name and address, to definitively trace comments to a specific person.

          Accounts would be solely responsible for posted content, whether shared, hacked, whatever. Biometric and/or two-factor authentication would be required.

          Some kind of council (maybe a jury of 12, but more fast-tracked?) could vote on multiple offenses in a period of time - maybe a demerit point system - and place increasingly strict limits on offenders. First, a couple of warnings, and then increasingly long lockout periods, culminating in a lifetime lockout, or maybe supervised access only.

          2 votes
          1. [4]
            ourari
            Link Parent
            Aren't you worried about chilling legitimate speech? I would oppose its creation, subvert its existence, try to counter its measures, or - if I fail - silence myself. Having anything I do online...

            Aren't you worried about chilling legitimate speech? I would oppose its creation, subvert its existence, try to counter its measures, or - if I fail - silence myself.

            Having anything I do online have a hard link to my identity and place of residence is the stuff of nightmares to me. Collecting and storing that data is not without risk. The potential for misuse and mistakes is just too great. That authority may be harmless today or tomorrow, but we don't know where society will be at next week.

            An example for how data collected for a legitimate, practical purpose can end up being lethal:
            https://www.bof.nl/2015/04/30/during-world-war-ii-we-did-have-something-to-hide/

            5 votes
            1. [3]
              Bear
              Link Parent
              Yes, I am worried about chilling any speech, this why any actions would be judged by a panel of your peers, and there would probably be a graduated penalty system. As far as security of the user...

              Yes, I am worried about chilling any speech, this why any actions would be judged by a panel of your peers, and there would probably be a graduated penalty system.

              As far as security of the user database, that's a valid concern, but it shouldn't be held as a way to say a system like this might not work. Rather, it should be looked upon as one opportunity among many to harden the system against attack.

              As far your stuff of nightmares - Letting "but sometimes!" hold us back would be wrong, in my opinion. Not only would the database and related systems have large vulnerability bounties - "Show us a flaw first and fix it, and we'll pay you this large amount" but with IDs being tracked back to an exact person, bad faith actors hacking the database carries an increased risk for the hacker(s) as well - Criminal charges that would probably result in one of the hopefully few extreme penalties - Physical imprisonment and permanent online banishment. (Which would be subject to mandatory regular review by your peers, to prevent abuse) That would be a virtual death sentence, and not something any hacker would really want to risk.

              2 votes
              1. [2]
                ourari
                Link Parent
                True. I think it could work, in a sense, assuming that anonymity and trolling are linked beyond people's gut feeling. Is trolling really that harmful that it merits such a system? Also, who gets...

                As far as security of the user database, that's a valid concern, but it shouldn't be held as a way to say a system like this might not work.

                True. I think it could work, in a sense, assuming that anonymity and trolling are linked beyond people's gut feeling. Is trolling really that harmful that it merits such a system? Also, who gets to define what trolling is? I don't have a lot of faith in my peers... (Maybe because I'm not accustomed to juries.) It would invite the Tyranny of the Majority problem, wouldn't it?

                with IDs being tracked back to an exact person, bad faith actors hacking the database carries an increased risk for the hacker(s) as well - Criminal charges that would probably result in one of the hopefully few extreme penalties - Physical imprisonment and permanent online banishment. (Which would be subject to mandatory regular review by your peers, to prevent abuse) That would be a virtual death sentence, and not something any hacker would really want to risk.

                Those repercussions would only be a meaningful deterrent if this system had global and universal adoption, a database of every living human. (But I guess that's what you're intending?) And even then, identity theft/impersonation is still possible.

                How would you deal with authoritarian governments? And those oppressed by those governments?

                How would a dissident use your version of the internet and ensure their safety and their speech? How would a freedom fighter? An activist? A journalist holding powerful entities to account?

                What would the very early days of the Arab spring have looked like?

                Sorry for the flood of questions. Trying to wrap my head around your concept and why one would want it.

                2 votes
                1. Bear
                  Link Parent
                  I'm not saying that there wouldn't be obstacles to clear. As some are want to say, "I'm just an idea bear". I referenced juries because that's what I'm accustomed to, just as you are not. I too do...

                  I'm not saying that there wouldn't be obstacles to clear. As some are want to say, "I'm just an idea bear".

                  I referenced juries because that's what I'm accustomed to, just as you are not. I too do not exactly trust in the smarts of my fellow citizens, but, it's the best that we've come up with so far.

                  As far as impersonation, you failed to note that I already addressed that. In short, biometric authentication, with or without two factor authentication, preferably token based, so as not to be vulnerable to SMS hijacking.

                  As far as dissidents/similar, I have no idea, but quite frankly, they are the extreme minority of users. I'm sure we could come up with something workable.

                  1 vote
      2. OptimalBasis
        Link Parent
        I'm utterly against this. People will not be able to express their opinions without fear of reprisal. I don't mean extreme positions, but mainstream positions. In the case of an oppressive...

        I would love to see that cloak of consequence-free anonymity removed, with everyone having to register with a central authority to set up an online persona, and part of that would involve having to show confirmed ID, including a confirmed physical address.

        I'm utterly against this. People will not be able to express their opinions without fear of reprisal. I don't mean extreme positions, but mainstream positions. In the case of an oppressive government, this becomes a risk of being jailed or worse (for instance, in Russia, Putin's critics are punished, or even in the US during the McCarthy era).

        Your idea about semi-anonymous names doesn't help either. Database breaches happen all the time, and there would be a strong incentive to crack those.

        Anonymity is not a bad thing. Reputation can be maintained without people knowing your actual name.

        2 votes
  2. [3]
    Qis
    Link
    I enjoy my print subscription to the New Yorker, but I couldn't stand this article or really any of the magazine's attempts to cover internet cultures. Their editorial approach is very general and...

    I enjoy my print subscription to the New Yorker, but I couldn't stand this article or really any of the magazine's attempts to cover internet cultures. Their editorial approach is very general and so rarely gets to the heart of the issues.

    4 votes
    1. [2]
      szferi
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      What do you think the heart of the issue here? I see this article as an overview of the events for people not involved, not analysis.

      What do you think the heart of the issue here? I see this article as an overview of the events for people not involved, not analysis.

      5 votes
      1. Qis
        Link Parent
        Oh, of course, that is the purpose of the article. I just think it's somewhat reckless to use loose profiles and scattered interviews as the basis for this sort of overview. It is as if a...

        Oh, of course, that is the purpose of the article. I just think it's somewhat reckless to use loose profiles and scattered interviews as the basis for this sort of overview. It is as if a discussion of bullying among students were conveyed primarily through the impressions of a school superintendent. I appreciate that analogy isn't perfect, but perhaps you will take my meaning anyway.

        I wouldn't like to try to pin down the heart of the issue on my own -- I was commenting, as I think you understood, on the difficulty articles in that setting have with exposing a general audience to deeper analyses.

        1 vote
  3. [3]
    acr
    Link
    I think by having a user base that is positive and promotes that, and then everyone as a group letting people know it isn't tolerated. If every user just simply comments to negative stuff, "Hey,...

    I think by having a user base that is positive and promotes that, and then everyone as a group letting people know it isn't tolerated. If every user just simply comments to negative stuff, "Hey, no need for that." and that becomes the norm then we should be fine.

    I was in the Navy and I learned people really don't want to be singled out. I was one of four or five supervisors. We had certain people who would try and test what they could getaway with. I would be the only one saying no don't do that. While the other four supervisors would say, "Why do you care so much?" Then they couldn't ever get anyone to listen and do their work.

    The trick was, having multiple people in the department come down on someone. No one cares if one person doesn't like them especially if that one person isn't very popular. I was a scapegoat so no one cared what I said or thought. But they sure cared what the group thought. And if you had the group come down on them, they sure straightened up.

    4 votes
    1. [2]
      Axelia
      Link Parent
      In real life, this approach works well. I don't know how well it translates to anonymous communities, since there will always be a small group that gets their jollies from intentionally irritating...

      In real life, this approach works well. I don't know how well it translates to anonymous communities, since there will always be a small group that gets their jollies from intentionally irritating the rest of the population. You see it on forums, you see it in games, you see it in the comment threads of pretty much anything online. Telling these particular individuals "no, that's not appropriate" seems to just fan the flames and give them the negative attention they wanted.

      1 vote
      1. acr
        Link Parent
        If they continue, we ignore them. Let them know they won't get the attention and we won't be included in the discussion. I just think first step is fostering a positive group mentality site wide.

        If they continue, we ignore them. Let them know they won't get the attention and we won't be included in the discussion. I just think first step is fostering a positive group mentality site wide.

        2 votes
  4. [4]
    DonQuixote
    Link
    This is where I think Shirkey's comments are very appropriate as discussed here before.

    This is where I think Shirkey's comments are very appropriate as discussed here before.

    2 votes
    1. [3]
      szferi
      Link Parent
      Can you point me to that discussion?

      Can you point me to that discussion?

      2 votes
  5. starchturrets
    Link
    Technically, it is, as reddit contains a lot of NSFW material. Interesting. I can only imagine what it was like when they banned all the darknet subs. Wait, THAT freespeechwarrior? The same guy...

    According to the ranking service Alexa, the top three sites in the United States, as of this writing, are Google, YouTube, and Facebook. (Porn, somewhat hearteningly, doesn’t crack the top ten.)

    Technically, it is, as reddit contains a lot of NSFW material.

    In October, on the morning the new policy was rolled out, Ashooh sat at a long conference table with a dozen other employees. Before each of them was a laptop, a mug of coffee, and a few hours’ worth of snacks. “Welcome to the Policy Update War Room,” she said.

    Interesting. I can only imagine what it was like when they banned all the darknet subs.

    “There’s one guy, freespeechwarrior, who seems very pissed, but I guess that makes sense, given his username.”

    Wait, THAT freespeechwarrior? The same guy who made r/redesignfeedback and is raising holy hell about it?

    Nice read!

    2 votes
  6. NoCoolUsrrname
    Link
    I think when it comes to online conversations, people tend to fall into a couple of different schools of thought. One is that nothing should be off the table and any rules imposed are a breach of...

    I think when it comes to online conversations, people tend to fall into a couple of different schools of thought. One is that nothing should be off the table and any rules imposed are a breach of free speech. The other is that private sites are just that, and as private entities they aren't required to adhere to free speech laws which were written to protect political free speech from government retaliation. As with most extremes, it's unlikely either will ever be made entirely happy because they don't care about the conversation, they care about winning. So it seems the most reasonable middle ground would be maintaining rules that keep the conversations thoughtful while still allowing enough contention to push the conversations forward.

    2 votes