While the discourse on WE Blog is invariably civil and high-minded, that’s not always the case in South Korea.
The BBC reports on what appears to be a trend toward cyberbullying, where posters are not content to merely demonize those they disagree with: They also form online mobs to pass around the victim’s home address, place of employment and other details.
The problem of net defamation has gotten so bad that all of Korea’s police stations now have cyberterror units to help deal with it. Starting next year, the BBC says, a new law will force Koreans to reveal their name and ID number before they share their opinions online.
Could it happen here? Unthinkable. But it’s something to consider the next time you’re tempted to deploy expletives instead of arguments.
Posted by Dave Knadler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JWink on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- RightAngle on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on ACORN stole election?
- thomaswitt on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Phantom on Open thread 11/21
55 Comments
My, my. HMMMM…..
Have we been…..PUT ON NOTICE?
Interesting. The idea of losing anonynimity might improve the maturity level of discourse and decrease the personal insults. Not aware of any physical attacks–yet. Who knows, tho, if some of the attacks here could push someone over the edge?
I certainly endorse registration.
Hell, I been trying to find Ians address, but they won’t let me visit cuba.
Interesting….
You don’t say whether it is North or South Korea.
The internet is pretty big. If one forum becomes too oppressive, it is quite easy to find another. Ask those who run the Salina Journal blog!
I second the motion for registration.
Registration isn’t a bad idea simply because it keeps the people responsible for their actions.
On the other hand its just easier to type it in and press submit..
I see arguments on both sides, but if the problem is that bad in Korea, then they obviously have seen a need to do something about it.
Since people tend to like Wikepedia for a source, here’s one on Civility as it applies to updating/editing etc. on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility
I try not to call names or mock other people, if I do call me on it, I won’t do it again.
People in this blog and other tend to get some sort of junior high-middle school thrill of using profanity, name-calling and ‘branding’ people when they can’t make their point intellectually.
It is easier to call someone a ‘dummy’ than to discuss the issue why you disagree with them. It’s easier to lump all people into one group when in fact they’re not.
It’s easy to discount a person when you are not standing face to face or in the same room.
The anonymity of posting under an avatar or screen name encourages some to act up where they normally wouldn’t.
I ran a philosophy bulletin board back in the 1980s. I had little tolerance for those who could not discuss without name-calling or swearing and banned them from the board. I even supplied a definition of what an ‘ad hominem’ attack was. They had to acknowledge reading it before they came on the board to post.
Of course, that board was a lot less spirited and sometimes ‘bone-dry’ in commentary, but that was the purpose, to keep it more academic and civil.
Civility as a goal may not be obtainable, but at least it’s an admirable goal to work towards.
I like to use name calling and sophomoric antics WITH an intellectual argument.
WANNA MAKE SUMPIN’ OF IT? HUH?COME ON.
(just kidding)
What do you mean “It hasn’t happened here”? Well , not at this blog but here in the United States? Yes it has happened. While this was in response to real live protests as opposed to online, Michelle Malkin, a rightwing “conservative” posted personal data of the protesters which unleashed a storm of personal threats of bodily harm.http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/35381/
From Alternet:
Fox commentator and popular right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin “has crossed a line.” The “line” journalist Don Surber refers to is Malkin’s having pulled the names and contact information of three UC Santa Cruz students from a press release and published them on her blog, while calling the protesters “unhinged” and bleating that “[t]his used to be called sedition.”
Surber’s comments are notable because he’s an avowed conservative editorial writer for the Charleston Daily Mail.
“She knows better,” Surber continues, referring to the fact that Malkin is a syndicated columnist and pens the second-most-linked-to right-wing blog in the nation. “Only a mean person would be so crass as to put that information in mass circulation.”
This latest Malkin-related controversy began last week, when UC Santa Cruz’s Student’s Against War organized a peaceful protest against the presence of military recruiters at the campus’ annual career fair. Blogger Ezra Klein explains with a flourish:
Right now, the dark-haired, lashy Ann Coulter understudy is happily wrapped in one of her typical controversies: A crew of students at UC Santa Cruz, my alma mater, protested some military recruiters, and Malkin got hold of a press release with their personal contact information — a poorly conceived inclusion on the students’ part, but then these are undergraduates, not trained media flacks. Rather than calling and speaking to them herself, which is what members of the press are supposed to use such releases for, Malkin published their personal information on her website, prompting her hordes of orcish mouth-breathers to brandish their pitchforks and inundate the unsuspecting students with death threats (some of which you can read here). When the students frantically called on Malkin to remove their numbers, she posted their contact information again.
Blogger Jon Swift, in a tongue-in-cheek letter to Malkin, put it best: “If [the students] didn’t want to broadcast their private numbers to the whole world, they shouldn’t have sent letters addressed to members of the press, which as anyone knows, will print just about anything except the names of the people who leaked Valerie Plame’s identity.”
The hate and vitriol unleashed on the students by Malkin’s readers justifiably earned her Keith Olbermann’s World’s Worst Person Award. Here’s just one creepy example of the harsh rhetoric the students were subject to:
“My sincere hope is that a couple hundred of the local patriots take a day off work for your next anarchist event, and come down with some axe handles and bust your fucking heads.”
In an update to her original post, and after receiving criticism from across the blogs for the hate that followed, Malkin added the disclaimer: “I do not condone death threats or foul language.” Following that disclaimer (and the republication of the students’ information), Malkin’s updated contact information was posted on a small political website out of New Jersey called One People’s Project.
The predictably overwrought response from Malkin would be amusing were it not so delusional: “The anti-troops brigade at UC Santa Cruz has now called in the left-wing blogosphere’s kings of hate to attack me.”
Unfortunately, although Malkin published the sickening emails she’s received as a result of the disclosure, she doesn’t link to the call to left-wing blogs supposedly put out by the Students Against War nor does she name or link to the blog post with her contact information.
In other words, it’s unlikely that this site is, in any way, a significant player either in the liberal blogosphere or in liberal or progressive politics in general. One People’s Project is virtually unheard of and linked to by no influential liberal blogger, politico or pundit.
One of Malkin’s smoke screens is the contention that the protesters were somehow violent or threatening. She routinely refers to them as “thugs” in her posts, linking to allegations (from recruiters and spokespersons) that tires were slashed and rocks were thrown. As John Amato points out, however, one need only watch a Fox & Friends video to hear from “Cody James, a student at the university who wanted to see the recruiters and says the protesters were not violent.”
A Santa Cruz Sentinel article this past Saturday quotes Malkin saying, ostensibly as a result of the publication of her contact information, “I am now forced to remove one of my children from school and move my family.”
The suffering of Malkin’s family and of the Santa Cruz students is, of course, a deplorable and sad effect of the unethical publication of contact information. However, there is no equivalency here, nor should this sad chapter be seized upon as another excuse for lambasting blogger ethics in general.
The fact of the matter is, Michelle Malkin, knowing full well what the ethical imperatives of journalism are, deliberately and cruelly violated the code that no other blogger thus far has — not in this case anyway. Georgia10 explains that “Malkin is no journalist, nor does she have any decency. It is high time she be stripped of this designation in the media and labeled appropriately: as a pundit who makes her living off of propaganda and hate.” She quotes from the Society of Professional Journalists:
Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.
Journalists should:
* Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects. […]* Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.* Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.[…]
What is perhaps most notable about Malkin’s latest hateful act is the censure she’s received from conservatives as well as liberals and progressives. Surber, the conservative editorial writer from Charleston mentioned above, and a blogger himself, used to link to Malkin. Until now. “When people stoop that low, I as a reader realize that is all they have. They have lost the argument,” he wrote. “It is like when a political candidate goes negative. Malkin went negative. She lost the argument. She lost a reader.”
Explaining his decision to delink Malkin, conservative blogger Fred Witzell of Ace in the Hole wrote: “This goes beyond all decency in my opinion. I don’t care who’s side you’re on, there are ’some’ things you just don’t do …”
We’ve always policed our own quite well.
Some have gotten the sharp end of the stick from me. They may rest assured I’ve taken FAR more than I’ve given. And I only “give” it to those who’ve got it coming.
I’m bothered little by insults or even threats of assualt. I can take care of myself thank you.
What IS a shame is that there is no….truth detector. I have seen some of the most outrageous claims of fact posted here.
But again, we police ourselves fairly well. A wild assertion is unlikely to stand scrutiny.
“Invariably civil and high-minded.”
You’re killin’ me, Dave Knadler, I tell you what.
I’m with J R on this one: no registration, no external limits on what can be said. Politics, as they say, ain’t beanbag, and the discourse here ought to reflect the gravity of the matters being discussed. We’re Americans. If we start down the slippery slope of limiting speech, we’ll find ourselves the ones being censored rather than the other guy.
I also believe that in the cyber environment, anonymity is critical to a free exchange of ideas. If that goes away, I, for one, will cease to post here. My ideas should stand or fall on their own, regardless of whose name is attached to them. As they say, on the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog.
I draw the line at outing people’s personal and professional identities, and at making threats. Both actions are intended to shut down discourse, and as such ought to be prohibited.
Ian’s address shouldn’t be that hard to find … Lansing, Leavenworth, Lansing, no doubt. The best place to start would be his Department of Corrections identification number, but that may fall under the newest HIPPA restrictions. Maybe you could look under the Sexual Offenders’ Registration list ?
Seriously, though, I have no problem with registration, although I think it should be voluntary. For example, the requirement might be an element of admission if you wish to participate in a particular blog; whereas others could operate without that requirement … a matter of choice, as it were. I sure as hell don’t want the government telling me I must register. If it wasn’t for the unwarranted invasions of our personal information already, “identity theft” wouldn’t and couldn’t even exist.
“While the discourse on WE Blog is invariably civil and high-minded, …”
Mr. Knadler, if you truly believe this, I suggest you are delusional.
“While the discourse on WE Blog is invariably civil and high-minded . . .”
You must be reading some other blog, Dave. It ain’t this one.
We don’t need registration. We’ve got JR!! Self appointed, self-important, freely handing out the “sharp end of the stick.” What more could we ask for?
What would be nice is a registration that required a screen name of nic and a password. Once a nic is taken, it is taken. No more trollies.
SOL’S RIGHT.we don’t need no stinking moderation, we just don’t want someone else being an ass under our names, we do that well enough.
And all yous peoples sayin’ Dave ain’t right about us being civil…FUCK YOU! ha
We seem to be more civil to each other after we have attended one of the meetups that we the posters put together. If there hasn’t been a meetup in a while then things get to be more hostile. We haven’t had a meeting since the editors meeting last summer. It’s getting to cold to have one at a park (where 2 out of the past 3 have been held) but perhaps we should have one again so those of us in the Wichita area (and those willing to drive) can do a meet and greet and politely converse. JR you have to leave your sharp stick at home. We should have a toast to Nathan wishing him a safe tour of duty and a safe return home and another toast in thought of those unable to attend.
Yes CF, thoughts and ideas should stand up on their own but I must confess that sometimes if I see a certain someones post I just scroll by (ie Ian) or I give more consideration to (ie Rage or KFG – don’t always agree but respect them as intellegent individuals)
sorry Trace – you aren’t my type;)~
This blog is supposed to be a forum for the exchange of opinions, but it usually degrades into a “My side vs. Your side” bunch of BS propogated by some dimwitted people who have to put others into one of a few categorical boxes. Independent, free-thinking opinions are usually denigrated in that fashion. I’ve been called a liberal nut and a RWNJ. Whatever I am, I’m not dumb enough to think that one party or another has my best interests at heart.
Personally, I have learned alot from some folks that I totally disagree with, and developed a different perspective on a few issues by trying to keep an open mind. The name calling and labeling don’t really serve any purpose as far as I am concerned, and I try to avoid that!
Dave’s blog seems to suggest that there’s only two options–government control or complete anarchy.
There’s actually a very workable option that both the left website DemocraticUnderground and the right website FreeRepublic use to good effect.
They require a unique log-in (as Devo suggests) which prevents trolling.
When a thread gets out of hand, the moderators “lock” it, so no one can post to it further, or in extreme cases “pull” it.
If people try to disrupt and harass post-ers, their posts are pulled and their ID’s are revoked so that they can no longer log on.
I’m surprised that the WEBlog hasn’t implemented some of these tools.
The way it is now works pretty well most of the time.
But it only takes one time for it not to work to get ugly very fast.
Hey, Todd, remember when you said that “nobody named ‘Raj Goyle’ could win an election in Wichita”?
Goes to show what smart hard work can do, doesn’t it?
I would register as long as my information was private. I definitely favor just a login so that you can reserve your name, allowing others to know it’s you.
It has gotten out of hand a time or two.Here’s another vote for a meetup.
“Goes to show what smart hard work can do, doesn’t it?”
Smart & hard work as well as six figures in campaign funds (a good share of which was supposedly from out of state). I would have voted for him had I had the chance; it was good to see Huey go down in defeat. I am sure he worked hard, but being well-funded doesn’t hurt anything.
“Hey, Todd, remember when you said that “nobody named ‘Raj Goyle’ could win an election in Wichita”?”
Well, we can’t all be as prescient as you are, Cap. Or as irrelevant to the topic at hand.
And of course, I have to wonder…
how many of those votes were pro Raj and how many were anti-bonbon?
I dont really care. I just like the result.
Bonbon is gonegone!!!!!!!!
I’ve been favor of as little interference with the free-wheeling atmosphere as possible. I favored easier registration than is likely to be available, and still have doubts about that, as it could kill the spontaneity.
My concern is mainly with ID theft. I could not care less about the obnoxious posters; they can be ignored or, in extreme cases (i.e. libel, etc.), deleted on request.
How about IP logging (private, of course–don’t post them!)? You post under a name, the IP is automatically associated with it. Someone else tries to use your nic, no go.
That, of course, can produce its own problems, and it’s not foolproof (witness the confusion with ‘kansasman’–troll or just coincidence?). But it might be a good technical solution that doesn’t interfere (much) with the give-and-take.
Julie, thank you for your kind comments. I try to not to be TOO much of a jerk! :-)
I think Dave Knadler reads these things sometimes. If you are reading Dave, and care to make a comment, what would you favor as far as unique log-in, registration, etc.
Well, I do post from 2 different machines: home, and occasionally at work, when numerical simulations got drawn out longer than expected. Would that mean I need 2 ID’s?
Good point, Roo. Yes, you would (although “Roo Haa” and “Roo_Haa” would be considered different). Which means IP logging could be a headache, and perhaps self-defeating, as we couldn’t tell the genuine people using different locations from the trolls.
Require a userid and a live email. Password would be sent to email address activating id. Then allow a system where someone like Roo Haa could also have variants (Roo_Haa) etc. The thing I as a user/reader want to be able to do is know at least somewhat what I am looking at.
>>>I think Dave Knadler reads these things sometimes. If you are reading Dave, and care to make a comment, what would you favor as far as unique log-in, registration, etc.<<<
We do need to require a unique log-in and a genuine e-mail address. Makes it easier to thwart trolls — and police the posts that are particularly libelous, particularly obscene, or threaten physical violence. (Oh wait, this is the civil and high-minded blog… never mind.)
Unfortunately, the decision to implement this is not mine to make. So for now, this will remain more or less a free-fire zone. Carry on.
Hehe, “free-fire,” I like that.
Thanks for the comment, Dave.
Good to hear Dave!
I do like my free fire! And I take as well as give.
Well…
MY email address has ALWAYS been “live”.
I got some nasty anonymous hate mail VERY early on…..like more than a year ago. But I also get the occasional “fan” or source of information.
The “kansasman” incident is MY fault. I mis-read a letter. Thing is though? Even in THAT mistake I asked kansasSAM why he seemed to be posting out of the ordinary. Rage quickly caught and corrected the mistake.
And that’s the point. The regulars here are SO familiar that they get “nic switch” trolled hyperbolically and with misinformation. This is probably by a reader or infrequent poster with an axe to grind and no reputation to defend. Who can I pick on for an example….?
Ok Tracy
(Since he gets picked on so much lately anyway)
If most of us see “Tracy” post: “I’m just a bitter old woman, don’t listen to me.”
Well we KNOW that it aint the real Tracy. So the offending troll gets jumped on, usually goes away or sometimes provides an “entertaining” sideshow of their own.
Newbies usually learn the ropes pretty quick. I myself try to help them as I can as I am sure many of us do.
BUT
What DOES bother me is the occasional wild assertion of fact. We DO have readers. We should be responsible in posting or work hard as we can to discredit wild assertions.
Again an example…
I saw a new poster post to the effect that “Patton know how to deal with Islamic terrorists. He once had 50 of them dig holes in front of posts. Then he had 50 hogs shot, dipped bullets in the hog blood, shot 49 of the terrorists with the dipped bullets, and let the last terrorist go to tell the tale.”
Anybody else see that one?
I did MULTIPLE searches looking for SOME truth to that post. I found NOTHING.
But with this also, we are pretty good at policing our own. MOST wild assertions, half truths or outright lies can be quickly dispatched. And usually they are.
It aint broke. Don’t “fix” it.
I don’t mind registration, but I think we should be able to protect our anonymity, there is a real need for that. I wouldn’t express half of my opinions if I had to sign my name to it.
Now that’s not to say people don’t know who I am, but I get to choose who I reveal myself to. There are some real psychos out there I don’t care knowing who I am.
On the salina journal blog, many of us have met face to face. And it still gets JUST as heated in there. I will admit it’s harder to call someone an idiot after you’ve met them in real life though. Then again, sometimes it’s far easier lol.
By the way, the Salina Journal has a rule for it’s moderators, we must give them our real identity, then we’re free to post under any name we choose.
I would be in afvor of registration so as to do away with trolling coconuts. IP addys are very easy to conceal so that would not work. Civility and moderation are for suckers, let passion reign!
PS: Everyone is invited to the Santiago compound for Guiness and billiards.PPS: Keep the fan mail and hate mail coming.
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
I agree, thanks Dave for your view.
Political_mom,I have posted at the meadowlark blog, too. I used ridicule meadowlark to the point that he threatened to delete my postings, but he never did do that. I post there as “just wondering” – Meadowlark kinda of outed me by welcoming me to Salina – but I did not really care.
Interestingly, though I disagree with much of Meadowlark’s positions, I have found myself agreeing with his position of injecting sunshine on campaign financing. I think such can only help politicians be more accountable to their constituents.
However, p-mom, I don’t get this sentiment you express: “I wouldn’t express half of my opinions if I had to sign my name to it.” Can you explain this? I hold the view that I can’t be too attached to an opinion that I wouldn’t sign my name to. Hope that makes sense.
Not too long ago there was a troll who posted a regular poster’s home address and home phone number. I appreciated it that Dave took care of that one as fast as he did.
I agree that the occasional insult from a troll is no big deal. However, posting information like addresses, phone numbers crosses the line. I would favor IP blocks on these latter trolls. That would at least make it difficult for them to do their stuff.
Steven, I agree. That’s why I do use my name.If I’m too scared, ashamed, nervous, etc. about what I write being associated with me,well maybe I oughta save those thoughts for a more private venue.
JR,That post about Patton was mine. Didn’t read it on line I just heard the same story several times from different sources. I’ll try to find a link for you.
Anyway, the point of that thread was that in most cases, if you are not as vigilant in a fight as your opponent is, you are likely to lose.
Either way, this was not a blatant lie or a lie for a purpose. I prefaced it with “I think” so it lost it’s “This Is A Fact” flavor immediately.
Well see that’s why I didn’t name ya sol.
I coulda went back and found the nic of the poster and shared it above if I thought you were REALLY over the top. You’ll note I did not say WTF? on that thread.
As you posted it, I got that you were more trying to channel Patton than document him. BUT there was enough “sincerity” to get my attention. I know alot about Patton. I had never heard of him being in the Phillipines. TOO, islamic terrorism woulda been really unheard of prior to World War II.
LOL I did A LOT of looking for some proof of that one! I wouldn’t bother looking any further if I were you. The best I found was something said in a chat room!
WOULD Patton have done such a thing? We can speculate. But it should be noted as speculation.
You owned up to it on your own and that speaks well. Mild rap on the knuckles.
Still, we should be careful posting about real people and events. You can damage somones reputation….or your own.
Hey, I was wrong. It wasn’t Patton but Pershing. Looked it up on SNOPES and got “Undertermined”.
I’ll look for more on Muslims in phil. in a bit. Need to earn a pay check some time today :-)
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm
I was in the Army for ten years (almost ten years ago now :-( )
That is where I originaly heard it.
Sol-I’ve heard that story about Pershing also.Don’t know if it’s an urban myth or true.
I don’t use my real name for three simple reasons:
1) I like to keep this separate from my “real” life. I’ve posted in similarly public forums under my own name in the past. It’s more convenience than fear (though keep in mind Michelle Malkin’s stunt). But I’ll share my real identity with anyone I trust enough to behave like a human being.
2) If someone libels me, and I don’t catch it, they just libeled “Rage.” Big deal.
3) I have been involved with several organizations over the years (including my time here), and I do not want my off-the-cuff views erroneously (and deliberately) attributed to them.
I will use my REAL name, William Stephenson Clark, but I won’t give our too much personal info to protect my family. I can take care of myself (talking to you, Ian) but my family, even though they share my philosophies, do not need to be harassed because of something their father or grandfather has posted.
Good points rage and WSC
The first week or two I posted, I used my whole name.
But my last name is rather uncommon. There are only two others with my last name in the phone book. One is my mother the other my younger brother. MY name and number are not listed.
Both my mom AND my brother have recieved harrassing calls because of my posts here and my occasional letter to the editor. Though they do not mind and are all to happy to tell such folks just where to go, I do not want them bothered because I get under some kooks skin.
I use my initials…..some of them anyway.
So again, it comes down to a unique screen name and password. Other fields can be optional. I don’t even think an email should be manditory. That way you stop the trollies.
WS, I’m a father, grandfather, son, husband, etc.I don’t blame you at all for being very careful.I, for one, will not live in fear of boogeymen and unknowns in the future.I started posting by real name on other blogs, and when I found this one, I couldn’t see changing.I want to be the same from blog to blog.That way others (like fuzznuts) can hate me wherever I comment.If you ever send me email, I would never forward or misuse it.
Oh, and don’t worry about Ian.He’s just a scared inbred mutt.You know that barking dogs like him aren’t mean, they bark because they are afraid.
Sol, I think that the combination of your screen name and your email address together should be unique enough.If another Tracy shows up and wants to post as tracy, that’s fine. The email would tell ya’ who’s who? Ya’ think?