[Discussion] The Inconceivable Power of Trolls in Social Media

This is a follow-on to the nearly two year old topic "Trouble at the Kool-Aid Point." The intention is to provide a place to discuss the unreasonable power social media trolls have over women and minorities, with a primary focus on video games (though other examples are certainly welcome).

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/byiF9o9l.png)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/ArCZeuGl.png)

So I was on twitter and clicked on a post about a off duty cop in plain clothes getting shot. At the time there were 13 replies most mocking BLM in some way. I clicked on three of the replies to see what kind of post they make. All three posters only had racist tweets or retweets by racists. Made me think if these were Russian bots or just bots of racists groups.

Anyway I guess there is no point taking any posts on twitter seriously unless you know for a fact it is a real person.

Everybody's fault but his own.

he's just a victim of the culture wars ... okay I can't even say it in jest.

As someone on twitter said, after just one day on the job he was fired so hard that the guy who hired him was also fired, for being terrible enough to hire him in the first place.

Woke up, checked Twitter to see that the Alt-Right is claiming that they defeated the Nov. 4 Antifa Civil War and theorizing that the Sutherland Springs shooting is a Antifa attack.

I don't know what to say anymore.

Keep in mind that the same idiots think Sandy Hook was a hoax.

Something is wrong on the internet

To expose children to this content is abuse. We’re not talking about the debatable but undoubtedly real effects of film or videogame violence on teenagers, or the effects of pornography or extreme images on young minds, which were alluded to in my opening description of my own teenage internet use. Those are important debates, but they’re not what is being discussed here. What we’re talking about is very young children, effectively from birth, being deliberately targeted with content which will traumatise and disturb them, via networks which are extremely vulnerable to exactly this form of abuse. It’s not about trolls, but about a kind of violence inherent in the combination of digital systems and capitalist incentives. It’s down to that level of the metal.

This, I think, is my point: The system is complicit in the abuse.

And right now, right here, YouTube and Google are complicit in that system. The architecture they have built to extract the maximum revenue from online video is being hacked by persons unknown to abuse children, perhaps not even deliberately, but at a massive scale. I believe they have an absolute responsibility to deal with this, just as they have a responsibility to deal with the radicalisation of (mostly) young (mostly) men via extremist videos — of any political persuasion. They have so far showed absolutely no inclination to do this, which is in itself despicable. However, a huge part of my troubled response to this issue is that I have no idea how they can respond without shutting down the service itself, and most systems which resemble it. We have built a world which operates at scale, where human oversight is simply impossible, and no manner of inhuman oversight will counter most of the examples I’ve used in this essay. The asides I’ve kept in parentheses throughout, if expanded upon, would allow one with minimal effort to rewrite everything I’ve said, with very little effort, to be not about child abuse, but about white nationalism, about violent religious ideologies, about fake news, about climate denialism, about 9/11 conspiracies.

It's a long read, but it's worth it, and it dovetails with a recent NY Times article on the subject.

It's becoming increasingly apparently that Silicon Valley does not understand that the algorithms A.) are not unbaised and B.) Will not save them.

well... THAT goes some way to explaining those weird fetish-like Elsa and Spiderman videos from the other thread, at least 0_0

Well, Prederick, that was disturbing.

I don't think I'm going to be able to sleep for a few weeks after seeing some of those videos.

And it doesn't even cover the surgery/pregnant Elsa games! (Don't go looking.)

Thanks, Prederick. I'm passing that article around. This should include concerns over mobile games as well seeing that they are packed with gambling mechanics by and large. In fact, I'm at the point that smartphones and tablets should over 18s only.

"Sensitive content" is right-speak for gore and sexy ladies. I don't know why I expected Twitter's definition to be different from Bible summer camp, but I'm still a bit surprised and put off by it.

Reposting this, because it appears to speak directly to the YouTube issue.

Prederick wrote:

An interesting Twitter thread from Kumail Nanjiani.

As a cast member on a show about tech, our job entails visiting tech companies/conferences etc. We meet ppl eager to show off new tech. Often we'll see tech that is scary. I don't mean weapons etc. I mean altering video, tech that violates privacy, stuff w obv ethical issues. And we'll bring up our concerns to them. We are realizing that ZERO consideration seems to be given to the ethical implications of tech.

EDIT: Also, for reasons I will never understand, Twitter has decided, despite (from what I've seen) overwhelming opposition from users, to give everyone 280 characters to Tweet with.

I do not say things like this often, but that company genuinely appears to be staffed with completely disconnected Silicon Valley techno-morons.

Prederick wrote:

Twitter has been so, so repeatedly terrible at their service, that things like this...

....like, we're reaching a point where I have to question whether or not Twitter is just massively, spectacularly incompetent or actively sympathetic to @DinduCuck1488.

Right, so, Twitter verified Jason Kessler, organizer of the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville.

Make of that what you will.

Prederick wrote:

Reposting this, because it appears to speak directly to the YouTube issue.

Prederick wrote:

An interesting Twitter thread from Kumail Nanjiani.

As a cast member on a show about tech, our job entails visiting tech companies/conferences etc. We meet ppl eager to show off new tech. Often we'll see tech that is scary. I don't mean weapons etc. I mean altering video, tech that violates privacy, stuff w obv ethical issues. And we'll bring up our concerns to them. We are realizing that ZERO consideration seems to be given to the ethical implications of tech.

EDIT: Also, for reasons I will never understand, Twitter has decided, despite (from what I've seen) overwhelming opposition from users, to give everyone 280 characters to Tweet with.

I do not say things like this often, but that company genuinely appears to be staffed with completely disconnected Silicon Valley techno-morons.

It's the money behind Silicon Valley.

It's the venture capitalists and investment bankers that sink crazy amounts of money into start-ups and small companies so people can develop those new technologies. The money guys continually steer technology development towards something that can be sold or otherwise monetized (preferably in the smallest amount of time possible) so they can take it public and make millions.

Whatever hopes Twitter founders had about their company and technology it was packaged and sold to investors as an advertising platform. It's value to Wall Street is to push ads to the people who use it.

That makes it easy to understand Twitter's behavior. It's not going to track down and kill off the millions of bot accounts because higher subscriber numbers means it can charge more for ads. It's not going to purge literal Nazis and their followers because, again, more users mean more money and deplorables buy sh*t too. It's not going to clamp down on abuse and harassment because it's too expensive and doing so is honestly not part of their core business of selling ads.

This isn't about Trolls in social media per se (although I guess it kind of is), but definitely more on the "WHO IS RUNNING THESE COMPANIES" front:

Facebook Workers, Not an Algorithm, Will Look at Volunteered Nude Photos First to Stop Revenge Porn

According to a Facebook spokesperson, Facebook workers will have to review full, uncensored versions of nude images first, volunteered by the user, to determine if malicious posts by other users qualify as revenge porn.

Let us all sit and imagine what this job listing will look like.

EDIT: Actually the "WHO IS RUNNING THESE COMPANIES" response is unfair, since I literally said a few posts above this "the algorithms will not save you".

OG_slinger wrote:
Prederick wrote:

Reposting this, because it appears to speak directly to the YouTube issue.

Prederick wrote:

An interesting Twitter thread from Kumail Nanjiani.

As a cast member on a show about tech, our job entails visiting tech companies/conferences etc. We meet ppl eager to show off new tech. Often we'll see tech that is scary. I don't mean weapons etc. I mean altering video, tech that violates privacy, stuff w obv ethical issues. And we'll bring up our concerns to them. We are realizing that ZERO consideration seems to be given to the ethical implications of tech.

EDIT: Also, for reasons I will never understand, Twitter has decided, despite (from what I've seen) overwhelming opposition from users, to give everyone 280 characters to Tweet with.

I do not say things like this often, but that company genuinely appears to be staffed with completely disconnected Silicon Valley techno-morons.

It's the money behind Silicon Valley.

It's the venture capitalists and investment bankers that sink crazy amounts of money into start-ups and small companies so people can develop those new technologies. The money guys continually steer technology development towards something that can be sold or otherwise monetized (preferably in the smallest amount of time possible) so they can take it public and make millions.

Whatever hopes Twitter founders had about their company and technology it was packaged and sold to investors as an advertising platform. It's value to Wall Street is to push ads to the people who use it.

That makes it easy to understand Twitter's behavior. It's not going to track down and kill off the millions of bot accounts because higher subscriber numbers means it can charge more for ads. It's not going to purge literal Nazis and their followers because, again, more users mean more money and deplorables buy sh*t too. It's not going to clamp down on abuse and harassment because it's too expensive and doing so is honestly not part of their core business of selling ads.

And maybe one day it will actually turn a profit. They're thinking it will be next quarter, but who knows.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

And maybe one day it will actually turn a profit. They're thinking it will be next quarter, but who knows.

Which just puts more pressure on Twitter's management to focus on nothing but boosting user counts and cutting costs.

I sense a disturbance. it's as if a bunch of angry, rapey weirdos suddenly started moaning and whining about 'femoids' in unison...and were suddenly silenced...

Reddit bans 'incel' group from their site.

pyxistyx wrote:

I sense a disturbance. it's as if a bunch of angry, rapey weirdos suddenly started moaning and whining about 'femoids' in unison...and were suddenly silenced...

Reddit bans 'incel' group from their site.

OMG, sex is not the end all be all to life.

garion333 wrote:
pyxistyx wrote:

I sense a disturbance. it's as if a bunch of angry, rapey weirdos suddenly started moaning and whining about 'femoids' in unison...and were suddenly silenced...

Reddit bans 'incel' group from their site.

OMG, sex is not the end all be all to life.

Heh, I was thinking that if they, ya know,
maybe made themselves into someone that somebody might actually like having/being around,
they just might increase their chances at having someone stick around long enough that they could have a relationship, which
might just lead to un-cel-ing themselves...

We've ALL seen those (physically) mis-matched couples - some of those are because of wealth (I'm preeeeetty sure we could point to a current one), some are personality (funny, creative, animal-magnetism, whatever).

I'm pretty sure most of these guys aren't horribly unattractive, physically, but guess what sh*t-head - what's "on the inside" matters a whole f*ck of a lot!

Spoiler:

Or these ugly f*cks (inside and/or out) can lower their f*cking standards, and not expect a goddam super-model - if you want that, then stick to watching porn, and go f*ck yourself!

Sorry... I just read 3 minutes of their BS, and I got reaaaaally angry.

Yeah, I'm not so sure their celibacy is as involuntary as they assume.

Gravey wrote:

Yeah, I'm not so sure their celibacy is as involuntary as they assume.

The "in" in incel stands for "intitled".

Wink_and_the_Gun wrote:

Sorry... I just read 3 minutes of their BS, and I got reaaaaally angry.

Yup, that'll do it all right.

I always think part of my anger comes from the whole "There but for the grace of god go I" aspect of it. I can very easily see a younger me turning into one of these people. Well, sort of, I'm asexual so that part of the entitlement goes out the window, but that still leaves a whole sh*tload of unearned privileges and the sense of entitlement that goes with it.

I want to scream at them sometimes, DO SOME SELF EXAMINATION AND LEARN SOME BASIC SOCIAL SKILLS! You'll be a happier person!

Hell, my earlier forum posts here during my first couple of years were basically a few steps away from being one of those f*ckwits.

Then I started looking more broadly, found someone online who I thought was really cool... not necessarily the most attractive person ever, but someone I saw at least some attraction to and went on a date with the goal of just getting to know this person who seemed pretty cool rather than selling myself and trying to rush to sex.

Surprise, it worked! (Kind of, I mean, now I'm divorced... but ya know, some small changes led to me going from being pretty perpetually single to in a long term relationship for years.)

These guys will never not scare the sh*t out of me though, mostly because I can so easily see how I could have been one.

Yeah, I haven't had sex in like 3 years now and it's been 2 years since my last date... but I'm also not focusing on that right now either. It's not something I've made into a big part of myself. I just recognize I'm not really what most folks are looking for while I work on fixing up my teeth then getting back out on my own after. Sooooo, yeah, I continue to do things that amuse me, work on improving myself so that I will be better situated to date later... But here's the thing...

NONE OF THAT IS ANY WOMAN'S FAULT FFS!

My current celibacy, while not something I enjoy, is not inflicted upon me by the women of the world... it's simply the result of me not being the most attractive dude right now with pretty sh*tty teeth, who lives at home to save money for said teeth, and my desire to be childfree which pretty strongly limits my dating options.

At the same time, I'm recognizing half of my learning and changing was seeing my dad date post divorce and how no relationship falling apart was ever his fault and my desire to never be that.

Oh yeah, believe me... I had my own years-long "woe is me" and "girls only like jerks" and "I'm going to be alone forever" phase - I look back and really dislike that version of me. I could see myself getting suck(er)ed into the pickup artist bullsh*t. 'He's' gone, I'd like to think, for good.

There are a lot of reasons I feel like it was a good thing the internet-of-today didn't exist then - it's hard enough being a kid/teen/20-something, without the "exposure" (your gaffes instantly shared across social media) or access to pools of toxicity (that seems soooo inviting).

Yay! Maturity high-five!