This is one of the (probably positive) arguments for Google's "real-name" policy on G+. Perhaps another tactic we could use is to pick the most blatantly rude and obnoxious commenters on 4chan, etc and DOX them ... Once identified, we could comment on their pictures and let their family and friends know how they've been behaving.
The worst part is, I think we'd find many of the worst offenders are 14 or so ... they either haven't developed their humanity yet, or they'll be our worst nightmare as young adults.
Real-name policy doesn't really work. I've seen plenty of vile and horrible comments from people through the Facebook comment widget. And doxing is dangerous since it's in effect a call for vigilante justice. You don't even know if you're doxxing the right person. Extrajudicial punishment is extremely dodgy even in the cases where it is legal.
And Internet anonymity serves a purpose beyond how comfortable it is, which is to allow the discussion of subjects where few people want to have their real name and picture attached. Approximately 50% of the political opinions I debate online, I would not want a prospective employer to be able to look up.
I think this is a problem we have to live with. It sucks, but it's better than the alternatives.
doxing is dangerous since it's in effect a call for vigilante justice
Sure, doxxing (publishing someone's personal information), might be seen as "encouraging violence". But the people we're talking about doxxing are the people who make posts that are explicit calls to violence. If person A says "Heifers like her should be put down" (as in article), they are explicitly calling for murder, so why can they be upset when someone posts their personal information? It's not like doxxing calls for "putting the cow down", so it's not as bad.
How do you know that it's the right personal information you just published? That's what due process is for - giving the accused a chance to defend himself before justice is served. Anything else is by definition vigilante justice.
Someone who posts that a fat person is a "waste of space" and should kill themselves to "spare everyone's eyes" clearly already believes in vigilante justice without due process. If you think it's OK to limit someone's freedom of speech to ban doxxing due to it's negative affects, then it's obvious that speech that says a person "should be put down" should also be banned, since that's more harmful.
The fat person is not a "heifer" (a type of cow), we're already out of the bounds of "accurate information".
Yes, I think that hate speech should be prosecuted. I just don't think that the internet mob makes for a good prosecution and it's even a worse judge and jury.
> The fat person is not a "heifer" (a type of cow), we're already out of the bounds of "accurate information".
So in retaliation we accept that our act of doxxing might provide the details of a completely unrelated person that then suddenly has to deal with all the shit the internet mob throws at them? Or feed teenagers to the internet mob so that unto them be done what they did in a careless, stupid moment? Now that's classy.
Just because other people on the internet behave like careless, blundering idiots we don't have to.
"And doxing is dangerous since it's in effect a call for vigilante justice"
Is it really? Not by definition but I'll admit that people often use doxing along with a call for vigilante justice. I wasn't proposing violence of any kind ... just that some people should be shamed using their real identity.
Is there anything inherently wrong with intelligent objective "vigilante justice", especially in minor cases? Just because a judge won't look at a case doesn't mean it's inherently wrong to take action.
Yes, there is something inherently wrong with vigilante justice. Our law system is built on the pillar of due process, which means that we have prosecutor, judge and defendant and a process in which those three parties try to get as close to the truth as possible. Each party in that process has rights and obligations - and all those rights the defendant has get thrown out the window in vigilante justice because judge, juror and executor is one and the only party deciding what they deem "the truth" and "the correct punishment." There is no defense speaking, since the defendant doesn't get heard, there's no appeal, because the punishment has already been dealt. There is no 'intelligent objective "vigilante justice"' since there is no objective all-knowing human being, this is exactly the reason that due process was established: To prevent as many human failures as possible and to reduce the damage those failures cause.
Note that this does not mean "do not take action", please, do so: Call out false behavior, but keep it limited to the behavior. Collect evidence if you think that criminal charges should be filed. Support the victim. Doxxing, as appealing as it sounds is not the right action to take.
Vigilantism violates the rule of law. Just like censoring someone who says something really bad (but only if it's "really bad" and something you shouldn't say, of course), you can't just cancel the democratic principles because it seems like a good idea. That is the exact reason why we have these principles; because often it seems like a good idea but you will screw up if you make a habit out of it.
> I think this is a problem we have to live with. It sucks, but it's better than the alternatives.
I have more optimistic take: it's a social problem so technical hacks won't work but social methods do. Investing time reinforcing the desired community behaviour does work so part of the question is really figuring out how to make that as easy as possible.
I think the majority of them would never even think of saying something like that in person. It's to do with crowd behaviour and the fact that they literally have no consequences.
I've spoken to a few people that are super nice and then as soon as they lose their identity they just spew hate as a release for all the pent up anger built up throughout the day/year/life.
It's very similar to road rage. You can call people every name under the sun and throw up fingers left, right and center but I can bet most people wouldn't dare do such a thing if you accidentally walked in front of them on the street. There's no consequences really when you can just shut your window and drive off or if someone is going the opposite direction.
Real name policies hurt the most vulnerable people the most, and essentially cut off people who can't afford for whatever reason to tie their self-expression on the internet to a name through which or bullies or other abusive personalities can trace their real-life identity. As far as I can tell, they do nothing to curb harassment by people who are secure in spouting abuse because it is considered acceptable in their social environment.
>This is one of the (probably positive) arguments for Google's "real-name" policy on G+
The key is having a community with behavioral standards - a persistent identifier that a reputation can be attached to is a prerequisite for enforcing said standards, but without the community to set and enforce those standards? the identifier doesn't help.
Also note, communities often contribute to this 'problem' as much as they help. Nearly all communities consider certain types of bullying of certain types of people acceptable, and with that community backing? people seem to be much worse than they would be on their own. Most of the time? most of the truly terrible things people do are done in a context where that terrible behavior is normal, or even accepted.)
I think the real problem with a 'real name' policy is that I may wish to participate in different communities with conflicting standards for behavior. A good reasonable example that most of us face is our professional selves vs. our sexual selves. Behavior that is completely acceptable in a nightclub is going to be completely unacceptable in an office, and vis-a-vis.
Google tries to address this with privacy settings, but really? I think that's the wrong approach. The context trumps the relationship; Even if I meet someone from work in a nightclub, that doesn't mean I can apply nightclub behavioral standards to my interactions with them in the office. (I would argue that I could apply nightclub standards to our interactions in the nightclub, but some would disagree.) - At least for me, (and I am told that this is very different for other people) the thing I am concerned about is not so much keeping my non-professional self secret, but in allowing people to choose a context in which to interact with me, and allowing them to be not made uncomfortable by personal issues. If they want to dig and find my personal issues? that's on them.
The worst part is, I think we'd find many of the worst offenders are 14 or so ...
Based on some of the stupid comments my eleven year old has posted on Youtube, and the equally asinine replies, I find this very plausible. I've talked to him about what kind impression he makes for himself. He's not out to hurt anyone, he just posts stuff without thinking about it. Normal behavior for an eleven year old. I said some pretty dumb things when I was a kid, but none of it was broadcasted further than my classmates. Now I'm making my son think about what he says online and I think it's sinking in. I hope that in a few more years when he's old enough to go on the internet without parental supervision he'll be a decent online citizen. A lot of parents don't know how to do this, or it wouldn't occur to them to do so.
Yep ... That's exactly what I meant (not that 14 year-olds were more vicious these days). Your teaching moment will come when he's on the receiving end and will consist of two messages; 1) I'm sorry your feelings were hurt and the people on the other end were so mean. 2) Remember that when you're commenting on someone else, they have feelings too.
The worst part is, I think we'd find many of the worst offenders are 14 or so ... they either haven't developed their humanity yet, or they'll be our worst nightmare as young adults.