Like this isn't gonna backfire spectacularly

[Rageaholic]

Introducing Social Autopsy. A database that creates profiles of those who post hateful things online, profiles that can be viewed publicly. What they're doing is giving people a tool to publicly shame those who say stupid stuff online.

Most telling is the FAQ video. Particularly at the 4 minute mark in which she addresses children being doxxed.

[Greenday]

I don't see how this could possibly be abused in any way.

[Gravekeeper]

Well, if this isn't a pending textbook example of "Drag you down to their level and beat you with experience" I don't know what is.

[Anthony K. S.]

I am reminded of a panel of dialogue from a Something Positive webcomic strip :

Davan: You ... You see how this is all going to backfire, don't you?
Nancy: Dead blind men can see how this is going to backfire.


Kickstarter has suspended the funding for this project. Gee, I can't imagine why.


Also, the "Social Autopsy FAQs" video now has 951 dislikes and only 5 likes. I can safely say that, as awful as the YouTube community can be sometimes, any video that gets a like-to-dislike ratio of 1 : 190 has serious problems.

[Rageaholic]

And I really hate the CEO lady. At the 4 minute mark in the FAQ video, she addresses the concern about minors by smugly informing parents that they need to read the terms of service of social media websites. She then goes on about how it's best to be in their database when they are minors because they aren't applying for jobs or colleges. Bull shit, many teenagers under 18 have jobs and some may even start college before the magic 18 (or at least start applying). She then brings up children committing suicide, which should be all the more reason to not publicly shame them

And it gets worse as it goes on. She makes no attempt to hide that she thinks people deserve to have their livelyhood threatened for things they say online. She might actually be evil.

[s_stabeler]

dear god, I can think of several problems with this.

1) who decides what is hateful? I ask this question for a reason. Different places have different standards about how you are supposed to act. As such, the database will be biased, since whoever reviews submissions will be judging by their own standards.
2) Photoshop exists, so how do they propose to deal with cases where someone is put on the list despite doing nothing wrong?
3) People can change. If someone stops being a troll, is there any way for them to get removed from the database- or at least have their entry show clearly they are no longer a troll
4) she DOES realise that if a troll IS harassed online, and they have an entry on her site, she would probably be able to be sued?

[Rageaholic]

And now I'm hearing that fucking gamergate is being dragged into this. The only thing I could find is this interview. One of the big talking heads of GG, Ethan Ralph, interviewed Candace Owens, the brains behind this abomination. I haven't bothered to watch it, but from what I can tell, Owens is claiming that Zoe Quinn has harassed her. The rest is a bunch of conspiracy theories that wouldn't be out of place on the show "Person of Interest".

[Rageaholic]

Having heard the full interview.

According to Owens, Quinn got in touch with her, expressing concerns about Social Autopsy. When Owens explained that it's not doxxing and only a database for employers to pay see if potential employees are trolls, Quinn changed her tone to defending trolls as "not bad people" and admitting that she was part of anonymous (online hacker group). Less then an hour later, Owens kickstarter page was DDOSed and the internet deemed her public enemy number one.

I don't know what to believe since this is all he said she said. Personally, I'm extremely skeptical of anything Owens says. This seems like some convoluted ploy to use gamergate to her advantage (playing into the conspiracy theories surrounding Quinn). Or maybe I watch too much TV lol

[Rageaholic]

Here's an open letter to Candace Owens from Randi Harper, one of gamergates prime targets. She points out many examples of Owens contradicting herself and brings up a lot of flaws with the system. Here are some snippets.

You have a responsibility here that you’ve repeatedly tried to shrug off. When you put a product like this out into the world, you have to plan on how it will be abused. You have to think about the worst case scenario and how your product can be used to hurt people. There is nothing to keep someone from creating an account impersonating someone else and submitting that data. There’s no contextual awareness. A very common scenario is for someone to say something abusive, then their target responds by saying something that out of context seems overly aggressive and borderline abusive. This is a normal reaction to being abused. Do you just go all “a pox on both your houses” and put both of them in your database? Do you really think that’s helpful? Your platform is going to be used as a vehicle for abuse.

In your video FAQ, you stated that you thought this site — which will become a platform for doxing — is great for children. Not only is it really not a good culture fit with the way teenagers use the internet, but this would also be illegal. COPPA protects children, and you should probably talk to a lawyer. Or maybe you finally looked up what this meant after a bunch of people tweeted it at you, because now you’re stating that this site was never intended for kids. We must have just imagined you going on and on about how it would be great for young kids to use your product to report bullying.

[Canarr]

On a (somewhat) related note:

http://europe.newsweek.com/porn-actr...r-453357?rm=eu

Apparently, Russia has its own share of narrow-minded people who like to "out" those they find commit morally questionable acts - in this case. porn. Looks like they use a facial recognition app to find the social media sites of porn stars, then inform all of their contacts what they do for a living.

This kind of thing is shitty.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Thing is, I don' see a scenario where it doesn't happen.

As a society, our experience with public shaming and coordinated harrassment hasn't created a loathing the tools, it's created a loathing of the groups that do them. Which has meant everyone does it, not no one. We gave the keys to drive to the most extreme among us.

Whether its Gamergate outing women gamers or Amy Schumer outing some douche that was pushy, apps to find anti-gun advocates addresses or apps to find gun advocates addresses, we're having a big issue right now with our political alignment overriding what should be some pretty black and white stuff right now.

[Canarr]

I know that it's not a singular incident; that's actually the most worrying part about it.

[Canarr]

An interesting article touching this subject is on slatestarcodex here. Check it out; it's basically about coordinated vs. uncoordinated "meanness". Quote:

As a Jew, if I heard that skinheads were beating up Jews in dark alleys, I would be pretty freaked out; for all I know I could be the next victim. But if I heard that skinheads were circulating a petition to get Congress to expel all the Jews, I wouldn’t be freaked out at all. I would expect almost nobody to sign the petition

[SNIP]

This is my answer to people who say that certain forms of speech make them feel unsafe, versus certain other people who demand the freedom to express their ideas. We should all feel unsafe around anybody who relishes uncoordinated meanness – beating people in dark alleys, picketing their funerals, shaming them, harassing them, doxxing them, getting them fired from their jobs. I have no tolerance for these people – I am sometimes forced to accept their existence because of the First Amendment, but I won’t do anything more.