Bounties vs. Extreme Internet Harassment 716
A user writes Brianna Wu, a game studio owner in Boston, found herself the target of numerous anonymous death threats last month, apparently the escalation of a campaign that started when she spoke up for women in gaming, and that intensified during the GamerGate train wreck. Rather than hide, she's offering an $11,000+ cash reward for anyone who helps put her attacker in jail, and she's reporting — albeit at a time many see GamerGate being in its death throes — that it's already having an effect. Wu is also setting up a legal fund to go after those promoting more extreme libels against her and others, with screenshots of a forged tweet purporting to be written by her still circulating around the Internet.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Two thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't. Because the people in question are likely 12 and 13yrs old and couldn't get convicted anyway. The people in an uproar over this have this idea in their heads that there are an army of tech savvy Rush Limbaughs out their attacking them. And that's certainly not what's going on. The majority of people on the internet are under the age of 18... think about it for more than a second and you'll agree. The idea that you could sit in a chat room filled with teenage boys that can speak in complete anonymity and not get made fun of is a laughable. "The Internet" is not a PBS debate forum, it's a dirty coed locker room in highschool and there's no teacher.
The fact that anyone takes this seriously shows just how naive they really are. Think about it... someone can type words... on the Internet... and you're in an uproar. That's like putting a button in the middle of the mall that if you push it, it calls a swat team. Of course it's going to get pressed over and over and over again. Stop sending the swat team, the kids will stop pressing it.
Re:Two thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way any online death threat should be investigated. In the end the person (if old enough) should be publicly called out and shamed. If underage their parents would then be notified and HOPE they deal with it. Also I wouldn't object to the parents being send part of the investigation bill. They can put their child to work washing dishes and mowing the lawn till they are 18 to pay for it.
If it's found to be credible then it's time to prosecute.
Re: (Score:3)
If every online death threat were investigated we'd run out of police in about 10seconds. How about every death threat made in a bar while we're at it?
Re:Two thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think you realise this but it illegal to threaten to kill someone. So yes, every death threat issued in a bar that is reported and where there is suitable evidence should be prosecuted and where convicted rehabilitative action taken as well as compulsary remediation by the perpetrator to the victim. Punitive punishment is absolutely pointless and that is a lesson that needs to be taught to the perpetrators, effective rehabilitation in conjunction with remediation is the only sound solution.
Rewards are not really that effective and public action is far more suitable. So don't just phone in a report it to the local police. Collect all the evidence, package it and then go with that evidence to all the applicable authorities keeping in mind threat across state boundaries bring in Federal authorities. So local, state and federal police as well as the communications authority. Forming a political action group to seek greater policing activity in the pursuit of those issuing online death threats, in an actual threatening manner.
Re: (Score:3)
But it's impossible to catch anonymous teenagers on the internet
Actually it's quite easy. You just offer their friends $11,000 to rat them out. Trolling rarely happens in a vacuum.
Re:Two thoughts (Score:4, Informative)
We don't. Because the people in question are likely 12 and 13yrs old and couldn't get convicted anyway
You are forgetting that in the USA, it is not uncommon to sentence kids to jail for life.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2005/1... [hrw.org]
There are at least 2,225 child offenders serving life without parole sentences in U.S prisons for crimes committed before they were age 18, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International said in a new joint report published today.
While many of the child offenders are now adults, 16 percent were between 13 and 15 years old at the time they committed their crimes. An estimated 59 percent were sentenced to life without parole for their first-ever criminal conviction. Forty-two states currently have laws allowing children to receive life without parole sentences.
also read, http://www.thedailybeast.com/a... [thedailybeast.com]
Does an 11-Year-Old Deserve Life in Prison?
Eleven-year-old Jordan Brown is accused of killing his father's pregnant fiancé with a hunting rifle. Does that means he belongs in an adult prison with rapists, murderers, and hardened criminals?
So 13 year old making death threats? Hey, they could spend many many years behind bars for that and anything related.
Re: (Score:3)
" are likely 12 and 13yrs old and couldn't get convicted anyway"
sadly, it starting to look like that are adults doing this.
That said, a court could harder them not to use the internet for a year.
Re:Two thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
The majority of people on the internet are under the age of 18... think about it for more than a second and you'll agree.
I went one better and googled it: http://www.statista.com/statis... [statista.com]
So, not really then.
The trolls seems to vary in age but most are adults. Just head over to YouTube and watch a few of their videos.
Think about it... someone can type words... on the Internet... and you're in an uproar.
That fact that it is only a minority going as far as death and rape threats suggests that such behaviour is extreme and unacceptable to most people, even with the shield of anonymity. Anyway, it goes beyond just typing stuff on the internet. When people post threats along with your home address you have little choice but to take it seriously and secure yourself.
This isn't about children screaming at each other, it's about people making credible threats that they have the means to carry out against. They must have spent time researching the crime to get her home address, it's not just an idle threat.
Re:Two thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
Those internet age demographics you link seem to claim that absolutely nobody on the internet is under the age of 15, which makes me somewhat doubtful about the accuracy of the rest of the breakdown.
Re:Two thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
"they're not out there issuing death threats when the subject is global warming or football"
Yes, they are. Trolls are trolling every person in every topic. If you choose to only see some of them that is your bias.
Re:Two thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it really started out with a small game called Depression Quest that was getting rather good reviews, which made a bunch of people get all twisted up in a knot because it wasn't a traditional "game". Which because it was made by a woman (who suffered from depression) who was friends with a Kotaku writer. And that was the belief that the ONLY reason Depression Quest was well reviewed was because of that - the game developers were getting in bed with the journalists and thus upvoting those kind of games over say, Call of Duty. (Of course, no such link was ever found other than yes, the two were friends).
Of course, the silly thing is - the "gamers" worried that the nonsense games they play (like say, Call of Duty) will go away in lieu of games that have a purpose and such are completely mistaken and we've got history to prove it.
In books, we have literature and we have pulp. The former is like games like Depression Quest - there's a message and we would be better humans if we heed it. But we also have the pulp - the kind of book that's fascinating to read but really in the end, it's rather meaningless. It's just entertainment.
Likewise, movies are the same - we have the ones that have messages and meanings and intend to spur action. And then we have the summer blockbuster that serves to entertain for a couple of hours and is completely meaningless. Just a couple of hours of fun.
Games have grown up - we can have both games that have meaning and purpose, and games that are completely just for fun. The medium has matured. There's no worry that the "fun" games are going away - like the pulp fiction and blockbuster, they're the games that'll make the most money. Games with messages and the like are out there, but they'll never attract the same kind of money. It doesn't matter how good Depression Quest is, Call of Duty will sell more copies in 5 minutes than Depression Quest would've had the year it's been out. And Depression Quest is free. (Nevermind that reviews on the new Call of Duty game aren't terribly positive either - it's still in the hundreds of millions of dollars).
So a bunch of people have their panties in a knot because of something that's never happened. Sure the games with messages might get better ratings, but so what? Call of Duty can bomb and still make billions. Ask Michael Bay (whose movies rake in the billions) about being scored 2 stars or less on a review.
And yes, games that are meaningless will be poorly reviewed generally, just like blockbusters generally get poor reviews. Does it matter? Not a damn bit.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Woah there, cowboy. Who said "need"?
The problem isn't that some people believe that games "need" messages. The problem is that other people think that that games with a message, or interactive forms of entertainment which push the boundary of what a "game" is, should not exist.
That is tlhIngan's point. The mere existence of Sundance does not threaten the existence of Michael Bay. He will keep on making movies until it's no longer prof
Sweet! (Score:2, Funny)
I could use $11,000.
Too bad I have no clue who was sending those threats.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd start looking at Charliemopps (1157495) if I were you--just check some of Charlie's responses on this thread and see if you agree.
He seems to not think that making death threats is serious business.
I'm pretty sure it was Anonymous Coward. That guy says all sorts of crazy shit. Way to deflect attention away from yourself, but I'm on to you.
Getting trolled (Score:4, Funny)
Dear Internet,
We, the women of the Internet, hereby demand to be treated with respect and dignity. We refuse to be talked down to, insulted, or otherwise degraded while on-line. Furthermore we demand that you finally acknowledge that we do in fact understand technology and the internet as well as any...
Why are you laughing?!?! STOP LAUGHING! That's it, I'm suing someone! Give me your name... got it... Seemore... Butts... Got it, We'll be seeing you in court... Mr.... hey!!! Get back here.
Re:Getting trolled (Score:5, Insightful)
Death threats are illegal, they don't become legal because they're On The Internet any more than an old technology should become patentable because it's done On The Internet.
She isn't demanding that all women on the internet not be degraded online, she's trying to bring criminal charges against people who are sending her death threats.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Death threats are illegal, they don't become legal because they're On The Internet any more than an old technology should become patentable because it's done On The Internet.
The legality of death threats is actually not a cut-and-dried issue. This article [splcenter.org] discusses various U.S. court cases related to death threats, and what criteria the courts use to determine whether they are protected free speech or not.
I suspect that a death threat accompanied by "doxxing" would be considered more serious than an isola
Re: (Score:3)
There is a trade-off between curbing illegal behavior and freedom. Suppressing all undesirable actions on the Internet would require something very close to fascist methods, which makes the "cure" far, far worse than the problem. And yes, unethical and illegal are two very different, and unrelated things, despite the fact that most people do not understand that.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Death threats are illegal, they don't become legal because they're On The Internet any more than an old technology should become patentable because it's done On The Internet.
She isn't demanding that all women on the internet not be degraded online, she's trying to bring criminal charges against people who are sending her death threats.
Says the person that modded me troll and then posted anon. Ironic that you're using the same methods as the people you despise don't you think?
Yes, modding someone down on Slashdot is exactly the same as doxing someone and deliver them death threats in real life.
Re: (Score:2)
Which in no way changes the point.
They are illegal anywhere against anyone.
Re: (Score:3)
Which in no way changes the point.
They are illegal anywhere against anyone.
So is piracy. How are we doing at stopping that on the intertubes, anyway?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This broad umbrella category of defense which could be called "all trolling is the same, and thus is no big deal" always reads to me as reflecting extremely poorly on the people who make it.
It's kind of a trivial application of empathy to ask "How would this feel if it were me, instead?" And the conjunct of some strangers openly publishing your home address and other strangers threatening your life never seems harmless under that assessment.
Re:Getting trolled (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, I've got a fun fact for you:
Threats aren't protected under any nations' free speech protections. Zero of them.
Having stupid opinions, and insulting people are protected under: a great many.
Whether you pretend there's no difference or not, this is a long-settled question, and you need to grow up.
Re:Getting trolled (Score:4, Interesting)
This is about extreme harassment - death threats, attempts to fake evidence to get other mobs involved, etc. Not laughing at people. Not calling them names. Not disagreeing with them.
Does a death threat on the internet automatically become more credible because you're female? I'm willing to entertain the notion that it's the case, that more internet death threats are followed up against women than against men. But is it the case?
Re:Getting trolled (Score:5, Informative)
No, it is credible when it includes your home address. That's actually the law - credible threats are ones where the person making the threat demonstrates that they have the means to carry it out.
Re: (Score:3)
How is it illogical.
It's easy to rant and make idle threats on the internet.
It takes a lot more dedication and effort to dig out someone's address. That's not just some hot-headded rant.
So at what point does it become credible? A threat plus credibility seems a pretty reasonable bar to me.
Re:Getting trolled (Score:4, Interesting)
I recommend you read through this woman's tweets... She is extremely abrasive, histrionic and goes out of her way to get attention. On Slashdot she would be modded troll or flamebait constantly. She would consider that targeted harassment. She uses a few instances of actual threats plus a lot of people calling her an idiot for saying moronic things to say she gets nonstop threats. I am not a twitter person; I went to it solely to research this whole hoopla and neither her nor any of her sycophants would be able to handle Slashdot discourse.
She says these threats are targeting her for this or that reason (outspoken woman blah blah) but it is because she has made a spectacle out of herself. This has been brought up time and again but is labeled as "victim blaming". She wants to make it about "being a woman on the Internet" (that gets media attention) but anyone well versed in the ways of the Internet try to tell her it's just about being an idiot on the Internet. Unfortunately anybody that makes a spectacle out of themselves will attract people sending death threats. Those people are doing it for attention too so they will latch on to whoever will make it the loudest. No amount of stroking her ego will change that fact.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I blame the victim for feeding the trolls. At this point, the perpetrator of these threats is just doing it for the lulz. No one is actually going to kill her. But if you're a troll, this entire gamergate situation is a bounteous feast. All you have to do is write a nasty tweet and Wu goes off railing against misogynist gamers. Gamers chaff and argue back at her. The troll could have nothing to do with the "gamer community." Just write one nasty tweet and watch the neckbeards and SJWs scream at each other.
Re:Getting trolled (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not victim blaming; it is stating a fact. If you get a threat and continuously go on about it and advertise it to the world you will attract more attention seekers to make threats. No one is saying she deserves them we are just identifying the cause and effect. A cause and effect that no one knows any way to avoid. An effect that has always proven to be >99.99% without consequence so some people tell her it is no big deal. Unfortunately that doesn't go over well with someone that is pretty histrionic. Stop calling everything victim blaming. It is damaging and enables actual victim blaming.
Yes, someone announcing on twitter the moment they receive any threats, retweeting any negative comments and publicly announcing how scared for their life they are is pretty much the definition of histrionic. It's also indicative of someone going out of their way for attention. I'm sorry you don't like that but it is what it is.
She hasn't been a continuous target. She fans the flames constantly. You can't claim to be a target of something you are also constantly antagonizing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The ability to "handle" slashdot "discussions" is not exactly a good criteria for anything or anyone.
Now if we had discussions and reasonable conversations on slashdot, that would be a whole different ballgame.
Re: (Score:3)
She uses a few instances of actual threats plus a lot of people calling her an idiot for saying moronic things to say she gets nonstop threats.
It isn't clear what your point is here.
She gets actual threats. You agree with that. So in response to actual threats she is offering a bounty to catch the people who have actually threatened her. You must also agree with that (if you aren't a sociopath) since a) actual threats are illegal and b) offering rewards to capture perpetrators of illegal behaviour is completely ordinary.
So beyond agreeing that she gets actual threats and is responding in a completely appropriate way, what's your point? That she's
Re: (Score:3)
Sure I am buddy. A quick glance brings this tweet up: I enjoy your gamergate tears [twitter.com]. That's definitely how normal people react to a group they are "afraid for their life of". Antagonize them. Totally not trolling or flamebait [twitter.com].
This tweet isn't attention seeking at all: link [twitter.com]. Here's some stupid: link [twitter.com]. Here's somemore: alcohol + men is unsafe for women [twitter.com].
Twitter has a horrible interface so I'm not going to look anymore but the best example of abrasiveness I have seen was during an interview going off on the repor
Re: (Score:2)
Is a death threat from an 8th grade that immediately starts giggling after they post it threatening? Because that's what you're getting upset about... and that's the point I was making with my post. You're literally get trolled by a modern version of Bart Simpson. You seem to think that because they have a keyboard they're for some reason adults.
In the 80s I remember there was a wave of prank 911 calls. People were in an uproar. It confusing emergency services! Oh no! Every time there was a new call... ther
Re: (Score:2)
Yes - because somehow laughing at someone and threatening, perhaps seriously, and at least in a manner where the risk factors are unknown, to rape and murder them and their children and perhaps their parents too.... is *obviously* the same thing.....
teenage kids posting things anon to the internet should be taken seriously now? This entire fiasco has been a joke.
Re: (Score:3)
A) Why do you think they are teenage?
B) Anon death threats should be taken seriously regardless of who they are from.
C) Why is people being driven out of there homes, and getting dozens of death threats a joke toy you?
D) A group is specifically targeting people with death threats. This isn't a lone person.
Your knowledge on this topic is nonexistent, and just perpetuate the incorrect view that only teens make death threats and they are meaningless.
Re: (Score:3)
A) Statistics. 1/4 of the entire US population is under 18... who do you think spends more time on the computer?
B) So should planet killing meteors. But you can't do anything about either threat so why are you bothering?
C) What's a joke toy? Anyways... it's laughable, because she didn't get driven out of her home. Someone posted crap online, she moved. She didn't have to. No one's killed anyone over this and no one will. It's funny because she moved for absolutely no reason. On top of that, she could have p
Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
" albeit at a time many see GamerGate being in its death throes"
Who's saying that?
Oh that's right... people like Brianna Wu who claims she's winning because she's uh... gotta sue people who are no longer bothering her.
It's NOT in its death throes, the media has to prop up that story to claim victory after many corporations pulled funding from gaming mags and sites that attacked gamers for being misogynists.
This entire PR campaign has been nothing but pomp and circumstance to promote a meme and it FAILED.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is that why InternetAristocrat and KingOfPol left?
Because GamerGate's doing so well right now?
The whole thing is a giant ball of stupid masquerading as a "consumerist revolt".
Taken at face value, it's ridiculous and does not understand what journalism is, or games journalism for that matter. Just because Polygon gave Bayonetta 2 a 7.5 doesn't mean it's a bad score; nor is telling Nintendo to stop supporting them because it got a bad score appropriate. For a movement based on "ethics in journalism" it seems to not understand what that means.
Taken with a grain of salt, it's a horrible witch hunt against "SJWs, feminazis and progressives" for daring to question the status quo in gaming. Heaven forbid I don't want more games based on the same tired of misogynistic tropes.
Digging deeper than that, it's pretty transparent that the whole "movement" was started because Eron Gjoni couldn't move on after he broke up with Zoe Quinn and felt like pouring gasoline on the fire started by asshole angry crybabies at wizardchan who got upset that a *woman* of all people could suffer from depression.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's also burning out because they have collectively achieved exactly nothing in the "actually it's about ethics in journalism" banner in 2 months, in spite of massively massive amounts of time and effort to discredit women they claim to have no interest in.
That arc was inevitably apparent to everyone who's familiar with gamers' actual history of trying to influence the industry [kinja-img.com]. There's this whole history of making big, entitled, noisy movements about petulant non-concerns, then when the cards were on
Re: (Score:2)
Sure because calling grown adults whiny crybabies is just as bad as doxxing people and ruining their lives.
Bravo.
Re: (Score:3)
If the "SJWs, feminazis and progressives" want to make their own games they can. The market will decide what it wants.
They did. It did. That's what started this whole fucking circus.
affect vs.effect: grammar nazi harrasment (Score:3)
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/m... [theoatmeal.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for standing up and taking the blame!
Longstanding Police Tactic (Score:4, Informative)
The NYPD has a similar program of bounties [nyc.gov] that is reasonably well known. Given that various Crime Stoppers programs have been going on since 1975 [wikipedia.org], I expect they're reasonably effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Continued funding for crime or drug reduction programs have nothing to do with their effectiveness (see MADD, DARE, 12 steps etc). ANY decrease for whatever reason (social, economic or other reasons) will cause the program to 'work' and therefore require more funding to increase their effectiveness, ANY increase for the same reasons will cause the program to be 'underfunded to work' and therefore require more funding to increase their effectiveness. They're just a boondoggle that work well to create politic
I'm pretty sure that ... (Score:2)
Even if caught, the prepubescent boys trolling her aren't going to end up in jail over this.
Now if she could somehow bait one of them into posting a random, nonspecific remark about potentially shooting up a school on Facebook.. that might work...
Re: (Score:3)
"Even if caught, the prepubescent boys trolling her aren't going to end up in jail over this."
most of them(probably none) aren't prepubescent boys. As a rule, they have better things to do.
It's been 5 days since I last received a threat (Score:4, Insightful)
Damn my spotlight is fading out. Lets get the media machine going so I can get back in the limelight.
Really I don't know which bothers me more, that the press forms these phalanxes to shove alternate realities down our throats in a way that would have George Orwell blanching or that people line up and lap it up.
Do you seriously think if anyone didn't want the death threats and publicity that comes with them, they would go around DARING people on the internet to make threats against them ?
Re:It's been 5 days since I last received a threat (Score:5, Informative)
I find it interesting and disturbing how some people would rather believe elaborate conspiracy theories then believe a woman.
The same accusations were made against Anita Sarkeesian. For some reason she posted death and rape threats against herself on Twitter, in order to lose money by being unable to attend public speaking events. Brianna Wu is wasting money on lawyers and obviously wants to lose $11,000 to put some random person behind bars... to massage her own ego or something.
Or maybe it's a $11,000 dare, where the person daring to threaten her wins an all expenses paid holiday in jail.
Re: (Score:3)
I find it interesting and disturbing how some people would rather believe elaborate conspiracy theories then believe a woman.
I find it hilarious that someone can believe in a vast conspiracy of gamers to kill these women, then try to trot out the conspiracy nut card. Oh maybe you honestly believe that the press is honest and trying to give you an accurate picture of events ?
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, what gamergate is doing is criticizing several women's elaborate conspiracy theories about gaming and gamer culture. If you're going to compare, do it on like terms. Sarkeesian did the same thing, though I think she's smart enough to have done it purposely. She had a ton of tards give her 160k in 'sympathy' money to make a few youtube videos. Not bad. She probably thinks people like you are useful idiots.
Maybe some of these women are self (or having others) posting fake threats, or they are tr
Good for her. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's about time that teenage shitheads, and those who should have grown out of being teenage shitheads by now, realise that older engineers didn't create the internet just so they could to get their kicks by being antisocial shitheads towards everyone around them.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn straight. The older engineers created it for them to be the antisocial shitheads; and now there's damned kids all over their lawn.
Another 15 minutes (Score:4, Insightful)
The threats were not serious. Going "OMG they have my ADDRESS!!! I have to move out!!!" She reported it to the police (the right thing to do) but temporarily moving was HER decision, not a police recommendation.
People who make threats on the Internet do so because they're scared punks who hide behind anonymity. Would they actually go and DO something physical? Of course not - that would risk the very anonymity that allows them to act like punks in the first place.
I get it - you let a bunch of anonymous freaks get to you. But doesn't there come a time when you should stop feeding them by showing how seriously you take them? The perps are laughing themselves silly at this point, because that's what trolls do - get an emotional (as opposed to rational) reaction. Anyone connected with IT knows you DFTT - unless you're trolling them back :-)
Time was when everyone's name and address were public - we had this thing called a "phone book". For those of you too young to remember, go watch the original Terminator, where "Ahh-nold" gets the list of Sarah Connors from a phone book. Who cares is some coward has your address? Really?
And before some punk says "So why don't you post your address online for all the cyber-bullies?" - already did that in another user's journal discussion on gamergate [slashdot.org].
Re:Another 15 minutes (Score:5, Informative)
The threats were not serious. Going "OMG they have my ADDRESS!!! I have to move out!!!" She reported it to the police (the right thing to do) but temporarily moving was HER decision, not a police recommendation.
Proving you have researched your target and showing you have the means to locate and attack them is pretty much the definition of a serious threat. Any court of law would look at the pre-meditated nature of the threats and the fact that the perpetrator had the means to carry them out and send them to jail.
What they did is a crime and temporarily moving out is a sensible and proportionate response.
Re:Another 15 minutes (Score:5, Insightful)
Just try and convince me humans have not already crossed the same threshold.
In 1995 the Murder rate in the US was 8.2 per 100k with a population of around 260 million. In 2012 the Murder rate in the US was 4.7 per 100k with a population of around 313 million. In 1980 the rate was 10.2 with a population of 225 million. Shall I now correlate internet usage with troll activity, and erroneously conclude that internet trolling reduces the murder rate? Or should I conclude the Humans are the opposite of rats, and they become calmer in over populated situations? Also Erroneous.
Stop spreading BULLSHIT (Score:2, Informative)
FBI and DHS are investigating and have CONFIRMED that two of the women claiming to have RECEIVED death threats... SENT THEM TO THEMSELVES.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/859/945/263.jpg
Past example: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/womens-rights-activist-charged-with-rape-threat-hoax-on-face
I thought everybody already knew (Score:2)
This is feeding the trolls.
You receive death threats, you tell the police and let them do their thing.
Great (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:2)
Wu is trying to draw a link between Gamergate and the tragedy in Port Orchard - https://twitter.com/Spacekatga... [twitter.com]
Irregardless of the fact that: Gamergate discussion is actively prohibited on 4chan, the murderer has no connection to Gamergate, and no death threats were involved.
Please stop giving this woman a platform. She's obviously in it for the advertising and attention. Screenshots of her game have been plastered all over news articles for weeks now. She's self-reporting that she no longer receives thre
Re: (Score:3)
Link to her not getting threats anymore?
But yes, heaven forbid a woman who's worried about rape and murder threats link the systemic violence against women with violence against a woman.
Wouldn't It Be Funny If... (Score:4, Informative)
Wouldn't it be funny if the pro-GG side found the person sending the threats and collected on the $11k? A few months ago when GG was still housed on /v/ the reaction to people posting hateful/abrasive stuff on twatter was always called out and the poster berated for being an idiot. The pro-GG side doesn't stand for harassment on either side; the ones harassing people are on the extremes or are trolls looking to make trouble.
Food for thought: The major camps in GG can be summed up like this:
1. Trolls who make the death threats or are trying to inflame the issue (both sides).
2. People genuinely concerned with ethics in games Journalism (TotalBiscuit).
3. "Games Journalism" Media/central anti figures (Quinn, Wu, etc, anti), attempting to either silence group 2's dissent or gain fame by playing up their victimization. The "'"I'm being forced out of my home by death threats' on her way to the airport to fly to a conference filled with thousands of people she doesn't know" type and the "gamers are dead" type.
4. Those reacting to group 3's name-calling/bully-tactics (Boogie). The "average Joe/Jane" gamer who doesn't like being called a misogynist or a hateful person for just playing games.
5. Those supporting group 3 because of the harassment from group 1 (pro), who seem to be seeing a social issue (innocent woman being attacked by evil men) and want to fight against that. Views group 2/4 as slut-shaming victim-blaming patriarchy and has no intention of changing that view.
I also found it rather ironic when Sarkeesian went on Colbert and talked about how too many women portrayed in video games were damsels in distress and asked why more women couldn't solve their own problems.
The power of the troll. (Score:3)
The troll is only given power by those that respond. Don't like the trolls? Then don't feed them. It really is that simple. What we really have here is professional trolls going on a rampage and the inevitable and foreseeable backlash occuring.
This includes the original SJWs, as well as the initial media outlets that "rushed to their defense", and all the rest that have just exploited the circus afterwards.
A lot of "gamer gate" is just paying customers pissed off that the industry mouthpieces decided to insult them all.
Re:Wait.. (Score:4, Insightful)
That happened, in this case. Someone doxxed her, then someone used the dox as part of a death threat against her.
She's also had multiple death threats through a variety of means.
Not just that, but it was only like 5 months ago that someone made threatening statements on YouTube, then shocker, tried to shoot up a sorority house. Then shot whoever was on the street when he couldn't get in. Or the rest of the history of gendered violence against women.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, there's a way to put an end to these death-threat "pranks". Have the cops arrest and prosecute whoever makes them.
A death-threat is not a "prank". People who have gotten death threats have actually wound up dead, and you never know if the person on the other end is crazy, so you have to treat all of them as real.
I'm not going to lose sleep over a few trolls doing some jail time or getting hit with hefty fines. Or parents paying hefty fines on behalf of their idiot teens.
I'm perfectly happy for sites
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure. That's a fine use of our collective resources, destroying the lives of kids saying stupid things online.
Of course you aren't going to "lose sleep" over the imposition of a police state. You erroneously think it won't be used against you. That's the fallacy of every one of history's most notorious regimes.
Re:Wait.. (Score:5, Insightful)
destroying the lives of kids saying stupid things online.
Me? I'd call it a valuable life lesson.
The moment you target someone else, personally and by name, and threaten to kill them... that's a very clear and very obvious line. There's nothing slippery about it. Protection against threats like that is not a police state. It's called civilization. I don't care if the cesspools of the internet have been getting away with it up until now just because it didn't catch the public's eye. Enough's enough. This shit has got to stop, and frankly, it appears that the only way to make it stop is if people have a reasonable fear that there might be real-world consequences - that's something few people like to admit. Their rights stop right at the line where they start trying to ruin other people's lives.
It's pretty damn easy to pontificate about slippery slopes or a police state when you're not the one getting personally addressed death threats. Or aren't a women, who, coincidentally, happen to be a bit physically smaller and weaker on average than men and therefore are more vulnerable to physical assaults.
Re:Wait.. (Score:5, Insightful)
People who have gotten death threats have actually wound up dead
And many many many more have gotten killed without death threats. And many many many more have not had anything bad happen to them after getting death threats.
No one has any problem with investigating credible death threats. Random Internet death threats have just proven not to be credible. There is simply not enough resources to investigate them all. Simply a sad fact of life.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case they were credible. They included her home address.
Re: (Score:3)
Including her home address does not make it credible.
Re:Wait.. (Score:5, Insightful)
No one has any problem with investigating credible death threats. Random Internet death threats have just proven not to be credible. There is simply not enough resources to investigate them all. Simply a sad fact of life.
All kinds of people responding to this very story right here apparently have a problem with investigating credible death threats, which this very story is about. Some of those people are arbitrarily and without evidence claiming that death threats (which for some reason they designate as "random") over the Internet are not credible.
I'm not sure why anyone would consider a death threat against a controversial and apparently rather abrasive public figure "random" rather than, say, "motivated". If someone threatened me or you it would be "random", because we're just not very special or interesting (well, I'm not, anyway). But a public figure near the centre of the amazingly childish fit of anger known as "gamergate"? That's not random. It's motivated.
It's easy to dismiss credible, motivated threats when they are not against you. Stupid people lack the imagination to understand how unsettling it can be to get direct, specific threats against themselves that include details of where they live.
To declare an entire class of threats non-credible because of the medium used to deliver them is not reasonable. It's like the cops say, "Well, this note is written in crayon, so even though it says they're going to kill you it's not credible! Who ever took a note written in crayon seriously!" Ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
If anyone is sending death threats, even as a supposed "prank," I'm confident that they are indeed crazy.
Re:Wait.. (Score:5, Insightful)
How much of a loser do you have to be to make death threats over anything remotely linked to video games?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Nice slippery slope there.
I think creating stricter enforcement of death threats is fine. Guess what? it's already a crime in meat space.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You think you are smart but you're really an idiot. The slippery slope is a valid argument because that's THAT THE WAY THAT US LAW WORKS. The whole thing is a slippery slope that goes back 1000 years. "The law" isn't just the statutes. It's also every court case that's ever been applied to them.
And prosecutors just love to stretch the law.
There was an article about that right here on Slashdot TODAY. So it's not even like you can claim ignorance because this isn't some legal blog.
Not everything online is dir
Re: (Score:3)
Threaten me in a credible way and I will respond
If your definition of "credible" extends to some douchebag on an internet forum, you've got bigger problems then people saying nasty things to you on teh webz.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Guess what? it's already a crime in meat space.
They are only illegal if a reasonable person would find them credible. If a mother says "Turn down the TV volume or I'm gonna kill you", that is not a crime because no reasonable person would think she was serious. By posting pictures of her house, and threatening specific acts of violence, some of these jerks may have crossed the credibility line.
Re:Wait.. (Score:4, Informative)
By posting pictures of her house, and threatening specific acts of violence, some of these jerks may have crossed the credibility line.
Quick - lock up anyone who can use Google Street View.
The more this goes on, the less credibility the complainants have. It's understandable that a young soccer mom whose only knowledge of the Internet is facebook and twitter might get upset over anonymous threats via twitter, but not a 50-something who works in the industry. If Wu was that upset about anonymous threats by internet trolls who "OMG HAD A PICTURE OF THEIR HOME HAZ 2 MOVE", the $11,000 would probably better be spent on talking with a therapist. At a certain point, it's just not healthy to keep dwelling on what turned out to be threats totally lacking in credibility.
The passage of a bit of time should have allowed Wu to gain a more balanced perspective on things, rather than taking action that will just feed the trolls. "Oh look, we're offering rewards, with different amounts for every level achieved." Note to Wu - life is not a game. Stop treating it as such if you ever want to be taken seriously again.
The more I hear and see of this mess, and the deeper I dig, the less sympathy I have for ANY of the parties involved.
Re:Wait.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotcha... You would rather live in a Soviet or Iranian style police state where even the smallest bit of mindless nonsense is treated like a threat against the state.
Now hoooooold on thar, pardner! I'm more or less with you in this debate, but your hyperbole is old and tired. There's a very big difference between death threats against a private citizen, and seditious speech. And let's face it, a death threat is kiddie grade terrorism. There's nothing defensible about it in these circumstances whatsoever. It is a form of assault, and it should be investigated and prosecuted. We could argue about what constitutes a threat (I'm not going to, but we could) but if you think it's okay to tell people that you're going to kill them, then you really are part of the problem. Words do have consequences, you are responsible for what comes out of your face, act accordingly. Obviously, the same goes for any other kind of expression. You're only responsible for other people's mental state as a result of your words if, in short, you are trolling. If your goal is simply to hurt them, that's not actually legal. It's a form of assault, and the law recognizes that in certain clear-cut cases.
Death threats are the children's version of terrorism. Only abject cowards engage in such pathetic behavior in an attempt to change others' actions, however they might feel about them. They might be justified if used to prevent violence. Not in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Making a credible threat against someone's life ought not to be treated like a prank. I've frequented the deeper sewers of Usenet, before the web came to universities, and that simply was not done. Nor was posting anyone's personal information. It was crossing a line. Granted people were much more guarded about their personal information as it was considered folly to post it. But the online world has changed and so has access to information.
Secondly, holding individuals accountable for making credible de
Re:Wait.. (Score:5, Informative)
Those are the types of pranks 4chan does. They don't actually kill people.
Except for the guy who posted on 4chan a couple days ago [nationalpost.com] about killing his girlfriend. The girlfriend's kid came home from school and found her body.
Re: (Score:3)
I am not trying to make this into a pissing contest, but there are lots of people who have a lot to lose by having their personal information exposed and anonymity removed. Like, anyone who has had an unpopular opinion and is realistic about how their corporate HR department would react to bad PR.
Then they've traded their freedom, life, and right to their own opinion for a set of lies and a paycheck. It's gotten so bad that people self-censor themselves, same as the media did in the run-up to Gulf War 1, and this is seen as normal because too many people are sheeple, so anyone who stands out looks like a nail, and HR is the hammer.
This (technology giving others more tools to delve into our lives) is an evolving situation and if we're not careful it's going to get worse. Whatever happened to "I d
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
no they don't, and making death threats against ANYONE is wrong and should be dealt with, regardless of gender.
Idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
This would be funny... [wikipedia.org]
If it weren't so fucking tragic. [wikipedia.org]
It's almost as if there's an intersection of misogyny and a culture of violence or something. [wikipedia.org]
What the fuck do I know I'm just some beta, well, strike that omega sounds cooler, some omega as fuck mangina white knight or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. (Score:5, Informative)
If Nathan Grayson, Patricia Hernandez, et al were Republicans, Gamergate would be handled exactly like the journalism scandal that it is. The corrupt writers would lose their jobs, their employers would acknowledge the seriousness of the situation and at least attempt to convince us that that it wouldn't happen again, and the rest of their ilk would be watched like a hawk for evidence of similar transgressions for a long, long time.
But no. Because the perpetrators were extreme leftists, they're afraid that the scandal might give folks like Fox News and Limbaugh political ammo*, so there was a complete media blackout, the likes of which I've never seen before (not a SINGLE article detailing the corruption, on ANY tech/gaming site, for a week). Another part of the blackout was blanket censorship in user forums/comments, up to and including reddit and--no bullshit--4chan. IMO this censorship of users merely discussing the scandal is still the most oppressive (and damning) anti-GG measure of all.
And then when the blackout didn't work, they colluded in a synchronized shotgun blast of articles to slander their core audience and intimidate any dissenters among them. The long-running smear campaign that began with the "Gamers are Dead" articles continues to this day, and the popularity of Gamergate is the long-running response to it. Every criticism and call for integrity is met with completely irrelevant accusations of misogyny and right-wing motivations. Gamers are (rightly) astonished and appalled to see corruption defended so vigorously (and uniformly).
And now that the smear campaign isn't working either, anonymous threats are used as an excuse to again slander the movement (this time as terrorists) and completely ignore the corruption. So of course as the smear campaign ramped up, the popularity of Gamergate ramped up accordingly--it's averaged over 50K tweets per day for a while now. And the gaming press, having addressed almost none of its ethics issues (to say nothing of its contempt for the gaming community), regularly feigns disbelief that Gamergate hasn't "burned out" yet in one-sided opinion pieces that, if anything, more than prove the need for the movement.
The crazy thing is that Gamergate itself is largely leftist. I am right-wing on many issues, but I've been impressed by (and learned something from) the integrity of the vast majority of left-leaning individuals in Gamergate. They just want journalism they can trust. They want the bad eggs removed, even if the bad eggs share many of their political stances. They understand that circling the wagons to protect "the cause" and "do good work" is likely to result in far more harm to the cause in the long run.
The mainstream media has now taken notice, and is just as happy as the tech press to pretend the journalistic lapses and cover up never happened, and to slander Gamergate as right-wing misogynist terrorists, all to support the invented narrative. It's an all too familiar story to those of us who've seen the mainstream media portray DVD ripping as grand theft auto, net neutrality as communism, or Jack Thompson as a defender of morality. But in this case, unbelievably, even here on Slashdot there hasn't been a Gamergate article yet that doesn't go out of its way to frame the whole issue in terms of misogyny and harrassment (much less an article that's pro- or even neutral). Is Slashdot politically motivated to misrepresent this issue? The question is moot, because most of those articles got 500-1200 replies each, so the Gawker-style clickbaiting is motivation enough. As far as we know, Slashdot's editors are kicking themselves for not praising Jack Thompson years ago as a hero activist.
* not an invalid fear, but you have to cross that bridge when you come to it. If you try to pre-emptively murder the truth then you
Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, maybe GamerGate was sparked by those events, but it's really not about that any more for me. The moment the unbelievable misogyny and the death threats started, it overshadowed everything else. I don't care who was behind it. Frankly, I think it actually exposed a problem far worse than anything related to journalistic integrity, and that's the lack of even the most basic tenets of civilization in many of our online communities. And actually, it's not just relegated to GamerGate.
Ask any prominent female figure who's active online, and she'll probably tell you some eye-opening stories about online harassment. How about having pictures taking of your house along with implied threats? How about photos of your children Photoshopped with pornographic or violent content? That's stuff that's actually happened, and it's driven some women off the internet and out of the public eye entirely - which was probably the intent to begin with.
You wonder why the issue is only framed in terms of misogyny and harassment? Because people are getting doxxed and real, honest-to-God death threats are being made against them. You dismiss them as "anonymous", but seriously, who exactly signs a death threat with their real name? What distinguishes a "lol troll" death threat from a "legitimate" one other than the intent to kill in the minds of the senders? The notion that these women are sending themselves or making these threats up seems a bit far-fetched to me. In either case, whether an intent to kill is real or not, what is undeniably real is the intent to threaten and harass these people.
Do you know why GamerGate is being "buried"? Because compared to "journalistic integrity", women getting harassed with death threats is about a 100x bigger deal. It's not a mystery. Gamers who verbally attacked those women instead of articulating a message should have taken a page from Ghandi or MLK. If you take away your opponents ability to attack your methods, then all they have left is the ability to attack your message, and then you can compete on the merits of your arguments.
Re:BULLSHIT.. Gamergate needs a real explanation (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really sad how every major publication leaves out half the story and instead tries to paint the gaming community as the source of the problem.
It's really sad how some cowardly gamers won't acknowledge that the death threats are the problem, and that their only source is some other cowardly gamers — the people who made the death threats. See, nothing here justifies those death threats.
Also, I really doubt the gaming community as a whole would condone any threats of violence against these women.
That's what you are doing right now when you assert that the "source of the problem" isn't the source of the problem, that is, the problem. The people making the death threats are the problem. No amount of dishonesty in games journalism (wank wank, stroke stroke, flonk.flonk.flonk) justifies death threats. Let me repeat that, no amount. It doesn't matter if someone tells you that Halo has the most imaginative level design ever or that GTAV never crashes or that some boring little indie game that barely rates a yawn is really ground-breaking and imaginative, you don't make death threats unless you are basically six years old, have no idea what you're on about, and very poorly parented besides.
When you make excuses for people harassing people and making death threats, you are part of the problem. No amount of hand-waving can possibly change that. You're helping to enable bad behavior. Why would you want to associate yourself with that?