It's also a heavily moderated forum. Let's see what the response to the article is on Reddit or one of the Chans.

Wrong. Most internet forums are privately owned, and thus the concept doesn't apply. Plus, trolling and harassment isn't free speech. Conflating the two is insulting to those who are fighting for actual free speech, in places where they will be arrested for advocating that.

I have a hard time knowing who is a troll as there are times when people become one but not in their normal behavior. I remember recently there was a study on that listed here which was interesting. Also, your negative tone for example could be interpreted as trolling if you put lots of those types of responses, not saying you are of course, but some AI might give you a false positive on extreme opinions.

What I meant was not the person trolling but the person viewing content, just being able to have their own filter, where the filter is not controlled by some 3rd party but under your own so let's say the 3rd party couldn't suddenly remove the option. More about control than privacy in that case.

"What if most of them aren't "trolls" at all, but rather people who have something to say that is important to them and they choose a method to say it that upsets some people?"

If the only way you can express your dislike of a black actress is to compare her to an ape, maybe just shut the fuck up.

"It is entirely too easy to dismiss a person if all you think they want is to make you mad with what they've said."

And it's entirely too easy to ignore the problem of real trolling and harassment if you think it's just people with "differing opinions".

>If the only way you can express your dislike of a black actress is to compare her to an ape, maybe just shut the fuck up.

??? You got me, yes, this is exactly what I do. There's a secret Nazi hiding in every bush and behind every corner ready to pounce and I'm part of the great Internet conspiracy of secret Nazis.

>And it's entirely too easy to ignore the problem of real trolling and harassment if you think it's just people with "differing opinions".

Harassment is totally the same thing. And if a hundred people show up to make fun of the dumb thing you said, it was an organized conspiracy to hurt your feelings and not myopia about potentially millions of people who normally see stuff and don't interact with it until it's too dumb to ignore.

If you've got people sending you death threats or violating TOS of sites, obviously report them. If they say rude things that have absolutely no value at all, ignore them. But if they're actually trying to pick an argument with you in good faith, they may not be a "troll" after all. There's FAR too much where people have slid into thinking that anyone who has a different opinion and expresses it in an unpleasant way is out to "troll" or "harass" them.

I mean, look, you just attacked me, a complete stranger, who has never done any of the things you brought up because I dare suggest that some belief you hold is wrong. How's that for proving a point?

For something like /r/the_donald, you're right. But for something more general, like general Twitter, you're not.

And you're attacking someone simply for stating that they think "Silicon Valley (especially SF) is all for diversity...as long as you think exactly like they do." From left field, you're bringing up and arguing against "having the opinion that a class of people do not deserve the same rights as others". And declaring that you know what EduardoBautista "wants": "no one to call you out for espousing terrible views. You want freedom from consequences of speech, not freedom from speech." How you come to these conclusions based on that one statement, and then bring up your contrived ideas in a seemingly vitriolic attack against another person, I don't know.

Perhaps people wouldn't call what you're exhibiting "bigotry", but I would: based on a single statement, you jump to conclusions and attack someone based on those conclusions. I think such behavior is one of the biggest problems in (a part of) American culture, and I would wager I'm not alone in thinking this.

> How you come to these conclusions based on that one statement

Because that one statement is from Stormfront.

Simply for the sake of meaningful discourse, I'd like to believe there's more to this thought. But you offer little.

1. Is there proof you have of this? Or is your statement just one of "This is something I think /they/ would say."?

2. More importantly: If a statement comes from the mouth of someone you feel is unsavory, does that make the statement invalid? Is everyone who then utters that statement unsavory, and so on? Do you think you can come to that conclusion? Particularly with EduardoBautista's thought: do you think you could come to that conclusion?

Attempting to associate EduardoBautista with Stormfront (with a comment like yours) would be considered a damning accusation to many, though such tactics have become painfully commonplace. That is not what you intend, is it?

I'm saying that the sentiment expressed (vacuous complaints about "wrongthink" when the "wrongthink" in question is complaints about people choosing not to associate with fascists) originates from Stormfront and their ideological brothers-in-arms. Whether he's an actual white supremacist or someone who got suckered into repeating their propaganda is immaterial.

Definitely not alone, thanks for writing that.

No, it's not wrong. Which part of his comment is the bigotry you feel like projecting? Is approval for stronger border protection bigotry? Is thinking the EO on immigration is fine bigotry? Is making assumptions about every single political opinion someone has based on a single statement bigotry?

Do you think that liberals or tech employees are somehow above bigotry and treating people poorly? Remember Talia Jane and her letter, and the extreme criticism she faced from HN members? Do you think the attitude you commented with will help bridge a political divide? Because your words are exactly why I think it's laughable to expect tech employees to do anything about polarization other than make it much worse.

> espousing terrible views

Except your typical Trump supporter avatar is being distilled into a handful of beliefs, even though many may have other reasons for supporting.

Most of America seems to have forgotten that single issue voters exist on both sides.

At the same time, in order to support Trump, you have to feel that xenophobia, sexual assault, bigotry, and mocking of the disabled are perfectly acceptable in a world leader. So they're not entirely innocent.

In practice "little tolerance for bigotry" means you might get fired for supporting a viewpoint held by the majority of Californians.

I'm going to get specific here.

I'm not talking about a bullying campaign that's branched out into the digital world, that is what I would class as actual trolling.

I run a blog that talks about the specifics of labour law. A number of posts resonated with a profession that was going through a tough time. As time drew on, what was professional unity devolved into infighting along two lines: accept a new contract, or not and carry on industrial action.

I advocated the new contract. It was the best offer(in my opinion), went from salary with a paycut and increased hours, to effectively an hourly rate with punitive overtime pay(for the employer)

Now, This is where I supposedly got trolled. I was innundated with comments saying that I had "betrayed an entire profession", "I couldn't add up", "I'd never worked as X what the fuck did I know"

In my posts I swear a lot. Instantly I went from an amusing post with some political points that "really hit the man" to "a dirty troll who's foul language betrays a profession"

I just expressed an opinion.

People engaged with me, and I them on twitter. When I didn't change my opinion, I was a troll. When I used high quality sources, I was a shill.

Unless someone doxxes you, (either in public press, or 4chan) you can just turn it off. Twitter/facebook/email can all be erased.

You do not have to respond. They want a response, to re-enforce their own opinion.

That's a little exaggerated I think. I don't have a blog, an active GitHub account, and don't use Facebook or Twitter at all. Yet, by some miracle, I have a robust social life and am gainfully employed. I think people overstate the importance of these services (most of which, by the way, did not even exist 15 years ago). I choose to post here but could stop tomorrow and it would have zero effect on my personal or professional life.

B-b-but how will I growth hack my way to a 4-hour-workweek selling ebooks about how to growth hack, without constant, obnoxious self promotion under my real name on all corners of the Web?! God's sake, I can't possibly be a thought leader anonymously! You savage.

What you just describes is normal capitalist economy. People selling and promoting stuff. If that person is able to make a living with just 4 hours a week work like that, they are pretty skilled. Are you saying it is ok to harass them out of that business just because you are jealous?

It is nice example of someone who would be really harmed by leaving.

No, I'm saying there's an inherent conflict between those for whom the "No One Can Tell You're a Dog" Internet is and should be how things work, and those for whom making money under their real name by polluting it with garbage is part of how they do business or build their ridiculous "personal brand" or whatever. For the former, the latter complaining that they're being harassed because they plastered their real world details on every virtual surface they could find comes off as 1) n00btastic and/or 2) entitled whining, and the continued pushes for increased real-name use and harsh moderation from that corner (and the continued intrusion of commercial activity, especially ads and the OMG-we-actually-live-in-a-sci-fi-dystopia spy economy but also marketing trash masquerading as content) represent attacks on the quality and freedom of the Internet.

Just because people get to run around filling the real world with junk to make a buck doesn't mean they're entitled to feel welcome everywhere they might want to do that, or that they can expect to be given a pass on common sense or the norms of the media they seek to degrade. They can console themselves with the fact that they're almost certainly going to win in the long run, I guess, since money always does.

That said: yeah, prosecute actual harassment when possible. "NEVER POST YOUR REAL WOLD DETAILS PUBLICLY ON THE INTERNET" remains and should (but won't) remain excellent advice, however, and I wish more people would follow it, and if they've chosen to ignore it to make money I wish they'd quit trying to make everything worse rather than saying "oh, gee, I ignored that and bad things happened, I guess I should stop ignoring that" (but they won't, because money).

Congrats. And everyone else is expected to be exactly like you and have nice real world community and job that does not involve real identity on the Internet. Gotcha.

Ignore trolls work when they are motivated by attention. It does not work when they hate your guts and seek to harm you however they can.

That is like saying "just igore bullies" to bullied kid. It does not work.

That's what they're trying to do.

But I'm getting really, really, really tired of people conflating the "other side" stuff with the trolling stuff. Look at all the stuff sent to Leslie Jones last summer. Do you honestly think that was meant to be a dialog? Of course not. That was trolling. That was harassment. And that is what people are trying to filter out.

I would agree with you there. I think the problem is we are talking about 2 separate issues, but due to intentional conflation of the two by ideologically motivated factions, we're crossing the streams by using the, now overloaded, term "troll".

If i say "leslie jones sucks" am I trolling or do I think she actually sucks at her job. If a million people one after another go on leslie jones profile and say "leslie is a horrible actress" is that trolling ? harrassment ?

If someone says "Trump sucks" should they be filtered out ?

Do I think its a dialogue, heck no. Do I think it should be filtered, double heck no.

If you send her dick pics, dead animals pics or photos of apes with "this is how you look like" under it, all that from hundreds of different accounts so that she can not effectively filter it, then yeah, you are trolling and harassing.

Likewise, if you flood someone employer customers with the above material to get him or her fired, you are harassing.

Let's not pretend this was just about "slightly impolite words". Or misunderstood dialog.

No. I am rejecting your reply. Go back and look at what happened to Leslie Jones, then try again. This is not simply "Leslie Jones Sucks".

You are conflating. I simply asked a question. I did not say that is what happened to Leslie. I do notice you avoid the question like the other who responded. That to me is very telling.

It looks like your account is teetering on the edge of using HN primarily to argue about politics and ideology. That's not what this site is for, and we ban accounts that use it this way—we have to, in order to preserve the intended use of the site, which is stories and conversation that gratify intellectual curiosity.

Hmm this kind of surprises me, but do what you feel is best. I am not attached to ideology or politics.

The post you responded to was me wanting to find out where respondees would want to draw the line on what is harrassment and what is open discourse online. I think this is extremely on topic, relevent and devoid of ideology.

As far as arguing I dont see it in my posts. I usually make one comment then read responses. I will take your warning to heart but I dont really see my post style changing.

When I look at your account history, it's mostly civil, but it does look like you're (bordering on) commenting primarily on political issues. The key word here is 'primarily': that's our present criterion for whether the site is being abused or used as intended. I realize the reason for that takes some explaining, so let me try again.

HN is for stories and conversations that gratify intellectual curiosity (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). That implies a wide range of things that are interesting just because they're interesting. We want people to comment here because their "oh!" circuitry gets activated—not their "burning issue" circuitry. (I'm using that word metaphorically.) It's not primarily a question of the topics since these things overlap, but of the spirit of the discussion.

Ideally there are larger lessons learned here than "there are assholes on the internet"

Like I would hope people now recognize that stoking a culture war to market a shitty movie is a bad idea.

How are they going to hire you if they don't know you exist?

A large part of getting the MBA is the piece of paper saying you have one, and another large part of it is the network you form while getting it. Things you can't really get online.