Feminist website Jezebel gets deluged with rape porn gifs.

[sufrommich]

For months, an individual or individuals has been using anonymous, untraceable burner accounts to post gifs of violent pornography in the discussion section of stories on Jezebel. The images arrive in a barrage, and the only way to get rid of them from the website is if a staffer individually dismisses the comments and manually bans the commenter. But because IP addresses aren't recorded on burner accounts, literally nothing is stopping this individual or individuals from immediately signing up for another, and posting another wave of violent images (and then bragging about it on 4chan in conversations staffers here have followed, which we're not linking to here because fuck that garbage). This weekend, the user or users have escalated to gory images of bloody injuries emblazoned with the Jezebel logo. It's like playing whack-a-mole with a sociopathic Hydra.

This practice is profoundly upsetting to our commenters who have the misfortune of starting their day with some excessively violent images, to casual readers who drop by to skim Jezebel with their morning coffee only to see hard core pornography at the bottom of a post about Michelle Obama, and especially to the staff, who are the only ones capable of removing the comments and are thus, by default, now required to view and interact with violent pornography and gore as part of our jobs.

None of us are paid enough to deal with this on a daily basis.

Higher ups at Gawker are well aware of the problem with this feature of Kinja (our publishing platform, in case you're new here). We receive multiple distressed emails from readers every time this happens, and have been forwarding them to the architects of Kinja and to higher ups on Gawker's editorial side for months. Nothing has changed. During the last staff meeting, when the subject was broached, we were told that there were no plans to enable the blocking of IP addresses, no plans to record IP addresses of burner accounts. Moderation tools are supposedly in development, but change is not coming fast enough. This has been going on for months, and it's impacting our ability to do our jobs.

http://jezebel.com/we-have-a-rape-gif-problem-and-gawker-media-wont-do-any-1619384265

[MADem]

1. Why don't they just moderate their comments, i.e., no one's comments get posted immediately.

Someone looks at the posts several times a day and either releases them to the site or deletes them. That would totally ruin his "fun."

I'm guessing anyone as jerky as this, who would do this kind of thing, is probably also determined and doesn't use their own IP address. They're probably using some kind of anonymizer/proxy to hide their location.

[el_bryanto]

4. Depends on how large a staff they have and how many comments they get.

I'm guessing Jezebel gets a fair amount of comments; and I'd understand if they didn't have the resources to have someone moderating it in real time.

So they have to decide if they want a conversation in real time in which case they are vulnerable to this kind of stuff or if they are willing to have lags in the conversation.

It's pretty terrible that someone would do this.

Bryant

[Hell Hath No Fury]

5. You're answer is here -

"...now required to view and interact with violent pornography and gore as part of our jobs. None of us are paid enough to deal with this on a daily basis."

If they moved to that system someone would STILL have to sit there and look at this vile shit day in and day out.

[MADem]

16. So, they'll let their readers look at it because they don't have the stomach for it?

That's not a solution--that's an abdication. If you want to run a website you have to take responsibility for the content. That may seem harsh, but relying on "Parent Gawker" to clean up the mess is likely not going to work for them at all.

They've got a couple of choices, since they aren't having any luck demanding that their parent company do the work for them--they can either find a way to disable graphics on their site so that no one can post images of any sort, and not let anyone post any pictures or gifs, or they can moderate.

There's a third option, too--not allow any comments at all.

They have a mistaken idea that identifying an IP address will solve their problems--it won't. Creepy people who frequent 4chan are just the types who have enough know-how to get around that kind of stuff. It's what they LIVE for. We've seen some famous trolls here at DU that just love operating right under the radar, goading, baiting, and making life miserable for ordinary posters looking for political discussion. These jerks are cut from the same cloth, only more obvious and more blunt. They just may have to hire someone who DOES have the stomach for that kind of work--because right now, someone IS having to do the job anyway.

[Blue_Adept]

53. Apply the same to DU

With the breadth of articles Jezebel has and interaction with the web at large, figure they get probably the same amount of comments per day as DU as an exercise.

Now put DU in moderation mode so no posts appear until manually approved.

Can you see why on a site of that size that it's not even imaginably possible? It'd kill conversation to begin with, strain the staff incredibly and remove the social side in a functioning way.

[MADem]

69. Disable graphics then, for new posters.

You can't post amusing kittie gifs until you've contributed, say, five hundred posts at the site.

[TDale313]

2. Don't even know what to say.

I just can't wrap my head around someone having this much hate for people simply advocating for women's rights. It just doesn't process for me.

[MuttLikeMe]

3. Sexism and Racism are close cousins

the same hatred that runs through prejudiced people also runs through men who hate women.

[bullwinkle428]

11. Homophobia is another close cousin as well. K&R.

[Skittles]

81. I think misogyny is at the root of homophobia too

yup

[De Leonist]

21. It isn't really about hating Feminism

It's more about the lulz. In fact many of the same people who do this kinda shit might even agree with the basic precept that women and men should be equal before the law.

But for them the priority is simply who can they fuck with the most while getting the most laughs out of the whole thing. If they didn't fuck with Jezebel they'd just as likely fuck with another random target.

I doubt who ever is doing this has any specific hatred for Feminism or Feminists or Women. They're just after as much lawlz as possible. If posting rape porn is going to get their target to react that's what they will use.

[sufrommich]

24. Oh bull. Of course it's about attacking a feminist site.

That's like saying that people who post racist shit aren't really racists,of course they are.

[De Leonist]

26. Are they doing it because it's a Feminist Site, yes but...

Are they doing it because they think actually hate Feminism ? Again I doubt it. I used to spend time on 4chan in my teens an early 20ies and for a lot of people there it's only ever about the lulz. A lot of these people don't care one iota about Feminism or Racism or any other social, political, or economic ideology. For them the fun is in offending people and watching their reactions. These are the kind of people who would post the most horrid smut imaginable on a forum for sexual assault survivors or would post nightmarish animal abuse on a forum for animal lovers.

[VScott]

31. I guessed it was 4chan /b/ doing before I even clicked on the thread.

Very little of it probably has any misogynistic intent, rather its 4chan being 4chan.

[MADem]

44. "The fun is in offending people..." I think you're right.

Find the weak point, and stick the knife in. Then sit back, with childish glee, and watch everyone get outraged.

We see this here, too.

[AgingAmerican]

60. I believe

The term is, "Trolling". Anonymity brings out the best in some people!

[MADem]

65. Yes, and I think that the way to deal with them in many cases is to confront them.

Out them. Lure them to blogs in order to expose them if needs must, identify them, and give them a taste of their own medicine.

Some famous (and not so famous) ones:

Rich little shit--

http://www.news.com.au/technology/unmasked-tristan-barker-australias-worst-internet-troll-being-investigated-by-police/story-e6frfrnr-1226589087674

The neighbor--

http://www.traynorseye.com/2012/09/meeting-troll.html

The offensive, no-life, lame-ass loser--

http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Man-Twitter-troll-Old-Holborn-leave-town-death/story-19785372-detail/story.html

I've linked to the "upskirt perv" from Reddit who got outed elsewhere in this thread--that guy was an "epic ass."

[Gormy Cuss]

45. "The fun is in offending people..."

without any regard to the hurt they create. That's pretty much the definition of a sociopath.

[VScott]

66. Yeah... I'd say that could pretty much describe a good portion of 4chan

The humor of /b/'s many users, who refer to themselves as "/b/tards",[63][64] is often incomprehensible to newcomers and outsiders, and is characterized by intricate inside jokes and dark comedy.[64] Users often refer to each other, and much of the outside world, as fags.[23] They are often referred to by outsiders as trolls, who regularly act with the intention of "doing it for the lulz": a corruption of "LOL" used to denote amusement at another's expense.[63][65] The New York Observer has described posters as "immature pranksters whose bad behavior is encouraged by the site's total anonymity and the absence of an archive".[56] Douglas said of the board, "reading /b/ will melt your brain", and cited Encyclopedia Dramatica's definition of /b/ as "the asshole of the Internets".[5] Mattathias Schwartz of The New York Times likened /b/ to "a high-school bathroom stall, or an obscene telephone party line",[63] while Baltimore City Paper wrote that "in the high school of the Internet, /b/ is the kid with a collection of butterfly knives and a locker full of porn."[23] Wired describes /b/ as "notorious".[64]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan

[eggplant]

34. I highly doubt it.

Asshole posters are assholes. Nothing more. It is a crime of opportunity.

[Cal Carpenter]

52. Whether it is conscious and spoken or not, it is about misogyny

You're dismissing it with a 'boys will be boys' line - what an insult to boys who aren't twisted sick bastards. There are a million ways to troll the internet, or even Jezebel in particular, without deliberately posting this type of image to an audience among whom many are no doubt triggered by them, who suffer real trauma due to experiencing this type of violence.

I don't give a shit if the assholes admit it to themselves or other people, the fact is it represents a real hatred of women, conscious or not. It goes beyond disrespect or disruption, and to not realize that is a sign of misogyny as well.

"Lulz"? Fucking disgusting. I can't believe there are people agreeing with you.

[redqueen]

57. Thank you. These same people wouldn't dream of dismissing racist or homophobic attacks this way

and it says a lot that it is done with respect to misogynistic attacks.

[TDale313]

61. Well put. Thank you. n/t

[TDale313]

72. I could not disagree more.

I think who is being targeted here and *how* they're being targeted is absolutely about hate- for women, particularly "uppity" women and feminists in particular. Whether the pos doing this would say that? Doesn't really matter to me. This is an act of intimidation. The message is stfu- or else. Justifying it as not *really* misogynistic is like saying a guy who puts a burning cross on the lawn of a primarily African American Church isn't really racist, he was just pulling a prank. I call bullshit.

[De Leonist]

87. Lets make something clear here....

I am not say that it isn't misogynistic nor am I saying that it isn't hateful. But rather that the people doing this aren't doing it specifically because of hate for Feminism. But because they want to make the folks at Jezebel feel offended enough to respond to their actions. A Troll isn't out necessarily to target one group but rather any group they feel will satisfy their need for lulz.
Is targeting Jezebel Misogynistic ? Yes But based on my experiences as a former denizen of 4chan I'm sticking with my gut on this and my gut tells me that the cretins doing this are out simply to get a response.

[TDale313]

93. Your prerogative.

Frankly, these guys and groups online who seem to make it their mission to whine about how women and feminists are the source of all their ills and to target women and women's groups online and make it feel as unsafe for women to speak up online as they possibly can have long since passed my threshold for giving them the benefit of the doubt that they're just harmless pranksters who don't *really* hate women and don't translate these attitudes into their real world actions. I think people who would do this are dangerous. These are threats and are meant to intimidate.

[De Leonist]

100. I AM NOT CALLING THEM HARMLESS PRANKSTERS!

Look if you really want to get into the nuts and bolts of it than yes it's possible a portion of the group doing this could be self-identified anti-feminists who think women are only meant to serve as playthings for men. But when you are talking about 4chan you talking about the sleazy underbelly of the internet. I don't know if you've ever been to 4chan but it's rare there to find a group of trolls who attack one site simply because of a hatred for it's ideology.

That is just not their MO. In fact many of it's denizens are so toxic they make Rush Limbaugh look like a decent human being. You keep accusing me of attempting to dismiss as harmless. But again harmless is not their MO either. Do they seek to troll ? Yes Do they see their trolling as harmless ? Doubtful. They go in full well knowing the type of emotions they will end up inflicting on their victims.

The group doing this are more than misogynists, they are sadists.

[TDale313]

102. I'd argue that the one's targeting feminists

And other women's groups (of which there appear to me to be many) are both misogynistic and sadistic. We'll have to agree to disagree about whether there is a strong current of anti-women animus coming from 4chan.

[Romulox]

6. Can't the site admins turn off image support? I am not able to follow the link

for the reasons described in the op.

[cui bono]

7. Is Jezebel tied to that platform?

I imagine if they could switch/move they would.


That is truly disgusting. That alone should have all men on a site such as DU understanding what women have to go through and get them to stop being so antagonistic to women standing up for our rights on here.

[LittleBlue]

8. I hate when that happens

Some image boards are deluged with very disgusting images (fecal matter on people, or gore/body parts from crime scenes). Happens on twitter all the time. Someone will find a popular topic and then you click to expand the tweet and boom, poop or gore. One was the corpse of a real person torn apart in an industrial lathe.

Hard to unsee that stuff.

[redqueen]

9. This tactic is sadly not new. Misogynists have used porn as a weapon for years.

I hope they can find a solution soon.

[blackspade]

10. Sounds like time to change platforms

Why Kinja won't address these issues makes no sense.

[rocktivity]

37. DING DING DING! Blackspade, you're our grand prize winner!

Last edited Mon Aug 11, 2014, 04:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Sounds like (it's) time to change platforms...Why Kinja won't address these issues makes no sense.

That's what Gawker should be asking Kinja. And if they can't come up with the answer, Gawker should take their business elsewhere -- which is exactly what they'd damn sure do if this were infecting one of their OTHER departments!


rocktivity

[MADem]

49. I think Gawker either likes, or owns a piece of, Kinja. The Jezebel staffers commented

heavily in response to that piece, and the take away I got is that GAWKER likes Kinja and isn't motivated to swap it out at all.

Also, I think Jezebel is owned by Gawker, so they can't take a hike, either.

I don't think they'll do anything unless/until it negatively affects their traffic. Right now the contretemps is increasing their traffic. It hasn't reached the tipping point yet.

[Skidmore]

62. Perhaps Gawker's advertisers needs to hear from

women ala the Flush Rush method. Women have powrr ad consumers.

[MADem]

71. Gawker Media owns a lot of sites.

I think the total page views are the business model for them--they probably run it like Google ads.

It took a sustained effort to take Rush down a peg, and even at that he's still not "flushed." To some extent, the traffic being driven to the site by the controversy is the boon for them.

[redqueen]

12. Don't you just love how most of these commens are about how to avoid the situation

and ignoring the part that's about Gawker's refusal to prevent it?

Why so much focus on treating symptoms and so little on prevention?

Why so much focus on minimizing and so little on the bigger picture here?

Harassing feminists using porn? No there's no bigger picture involved here. Just another isolated event. Nothing to see, move along.

[sufrommich]

13. Yep, was just thinking the same thing. nt

[redqueen]

15. Same shit, different day.

Sigh.

[Scootaloo]

14. Studied avoidance of the actual issues, yup.

[MADem]

17. Gawker likely not only doesn't give a shit, but they find the situation drives viewers to the site.

Why anyone would expect a commercial site that preys on the lowest common denominator, and is in the biz to rake in the cash, to have a "high minded" or "moral" approach to this issue is beyond me.

It's like expecting a con man to have scruples.

It's not called "Reasoned Discussion of the Issues of the Day"--it's called GAWKER. The site is all about GAWKING--nasty, brutish, rude gawking.

[redqueen]

19. What a facile reading of the situation.

Did you read the whole thing or just the OP?

[MADem]

27. I read the entire piece at the Jezebel site, AND at least half of the 1000 plus replies.

And that's pretty much what a lot of regular readers are saying, too. They aren't happy about it, and many want to go back to their old "moderation" system, where apparently no one could see one's comments (they were greyed out) until a "mod" allowed them into the mix, and then they got gradually integrated into the community. Many people responding complained about this grey--pink---star graduated category of commenter, because they never got out of the grey category, or their post was cleared AFTER the conversation had moved on.

I think I'm not the one being "facile" here--I've actually taken the time to read the commentaries. You?

[redqueen]

32. Once again you're all about treating symptoms.

You have lots of company there, that's no surprise.

Seems to me that in your zeal to find voices to back up your avoidance of the crux of this piece, you missed the significance of this:

Gawker has always been a place that would really go to the mat for its writers, a place that offered unmatched freedom to smart people with something to say. It's time that Gawker Media applied that principle to promoting our freedom to write without being bombarded with porn and gore. We're real, we're here, and we matter.

Nobody - not the moderators or the staff - should have to be subjected to misogynistic filth

Instead of leaving those down the line to deal with the mess, Gawker should step up and prevent it.

[MADem]

38. And ONCE AGAIN, YOU're all about making this PERSONAL. How entirely unnecessary.

Like I said, I read the comments at the site--they're saying, many of them, what I'm saying. Pardon me for being a realist.

You're on the "J'accuse" train, yet again, with me. Why that's your "go to" method, I've no idea and I really don't care, but I'm not putting up with it. You don't get to play those rude games with me because you don't care for my opinion, which is--like it, or not-- shared by many regular Jezebel readers. I know this because I took the time to read the comments by those readers.

You have a nice day. Not talking to you anymore about this topic. Go beat up someone else.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

42. exactly.

how to avoid assholes.

shit.

focus needs to be on how to quit being an asshole.

[redqueen]

46. The focus is how to deal with misogynists, and not how to prevent misogynists from using the site

to engage in misogynistic attacks.

No, we can't expect that.

It is sad that it is so common. But then again this is a feminist issue, and it is far from the only one where we are told that we cannot possibly expect to prevent anything, but instead must simply settle for dealing as best we can with misogyny.

Even when making it less likely for misogynists to engage in these attacks would be easy to do... no, nope, can't expect that, that's completely unreasonable. Just shut up and deal with it.

[Nye Bevan]

18. Why doesn't that website get juries and a MIRT? (nt)

[Warpy]

25. Huh?

I've found a couple of those images here and alerted. They were deleted but the assholes have posted them here, too. They just don't get through with bulk postings.

ha ha ha, isn't it funny send violent porn to the liberalz.

I agree that Jezebel needs to switch platforms.

[MADem]

29. They used to have moderators and a three tiered system of letting commenters into the pool.

They've done away with that because they are using a new platform.

As one commenter said, they're interested in "page clicks" at the HQ. This kind of thing drives them.

For pointing out this self-evident fact, I get noise here--go figure.

[LeftyMom]

55. Hasn't done much for the sexism problem here.

In fact things were much better under DU2.

[MineralMan]

20. Sounds to me like Kinja is a lousy blog platform.

If I were them, I'd be looking for a new place for the blog. No tools, no account.

[MADem]

30. I think the blog is a wholely owned subsidiary of the parent.

They can leave, but they can't take their name and rep with them.

I could be wrong about that; happy to be corrected if that's the case.

[MineralMan]

35. Yes. So it seems.

But others are using the platform, and that's where the problem comes it. It looks like Jezebel is not pleased with the response. I imagine they'll be moving soon.

[MADem]

40. How can they move if they're owned by Gawker, the platform provider?

I don't think they're able to do that. I also don't think they have control over what platform the parent decides that they will be using. If they move, they quit and go find work elsewhere, it would seem.

I also--and I read the comments, all thousand-plus o them--don't see any of the people identified as "staff" even talking about moving elsewhere. They're more about trying to persuade the parent company to "do something" about this--either provide moderators or software modifications.

[MineralMan]

41. You could be right. It's a big problem, anyhow, I think.

[MADem]

43. I think it's a tightrope situation for GAWKER.

Page views = $$$$$$. There's always a tipping point, but I don't think it's been reached. 1000-plus posts on one article? And many more readers, for sure? They're making money off this right now. (Note to the perpetual fault finders--that factual observation does not imply endorsement--this needs to be said because some people just can't read a comment without wrongly ascribing MOTIVE).

I don't think they'll hire a moderator (and they'd need a bunch), which is what some of the Jezebel staff wants.

Jezebel may well have to go back to their tiered "trusted commenter" system, much like we have here, where people have to make a bunch of posts before they reach that magic "You're in the club" point.

IP banning and tracking doesn't work--and "you'd better believe it" that this is the case. We wouldn't have any trolls here at all if it did work, I suspect. Our trolls are old trolls, not new ones. This is their playground. I suspect the same is true of Jezebel as well.

[MineralMan]

47. It seems to be a function of the entire Internet

that trolls go looking for sites to trash. Usually the trollery is juvenile and obscene on sites like Jezebel. Views may make the money, but at some point it's a losing proposition.

I used to have a comment area on one of my websites. It worked fine for a short time, but the porn posters and obscene trolls soon showed up. I didn't feel like dealing with the difficulty of finding a solution so I just discontinued the comment area, deleted all of the crap and left the good part up as an archive.

Even now, my blogs don't allow comments. I don't have time to police them. I know of no solution for this, really. Even DU, which has a good system in place, gets slammed sometimes. A couple of terms on MIRT demonstrated just how big the problem is. It's a daunting problem.

[MADem]

50. Yes--one of the JEZEBEL commenters had a good idea about that.

He or she suggested that, rather than put up an article railing about how impotent they were to solve their problem (and turning to GAWKER who are uninterested in helping), that they should combat the problem by going right at the people who do this kind of dumbass thing.

I think that's an interesting approach--I have rarely seen any articles that delve, in any depth, into the mindset of these trolls. I remember one article that outed some jerk who used to post "upskirt" pictures, and he was exactly--I mean EXACTLY--what one would have pictured--he was like a South Park loser caricature come to life.



However, we don't see enough of those troll outing articles. Maybe that needs to be the NEW "internet sport," one that is praised and championed.

Maybe if the trolls start to realize their keyboard cloaks could be compromised, that their identities coul be unmasked, that they might be humiliated because of their behavior, they'd be less eager to act like assholes.

[redqueen]

51. Identifying trolls would require capturing an IP address.

During the last staff meeting, when the subject was broached, we were told that there were no plans to enable the blocking of IP addresses, no plans to record IP addresses of burner accounts.

[MineralMan]

54. It can take quite a lot of work to unmask dedicated trolls.

I'm pretty good at IDing Internet personae, but the time it takes to do it means that I simply don't bother most of the time. Only in the most egregious situations do I take the time.

And then there's the legal liability of exposing such trolls. It's there, and it's real. Even if you're right, you could face some serious legal costs if the trolled wanted you to.

I don't have an answer for it. I really don't. And it's not a job for amateurs, really. Digging out identities takes a lot of double checking and making sure you have the right Ima Dumbass ID. If you make a mistake and call out an innocent Ima Dumbass, it could be a real issue.

So, I don't do it any longer at all, unless I'm personally attacked by one.

[MADem]

58. Not if you confront them directly. Make it a news story.

Eventually there will be one who wants to give an interview, hell, lure them in with a promise of a little bit of compensation.

Even if the person isn't named, a simple description of them can be devastating. The whole "Mom's basement" routine.

Frankly, I think it would be a stretch if someone who was trashing a website and violating the TOS were able to sue because they weren't "allowed" to post profane images on the site. The sites aren't public, they're private, and when people misbehave on private property, they don't have any right to privacy.

I'd love to see it shake out.

Frankly, I agree with the poster on Jezebel who said they need to take that route. We need more of THIS:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217109/Michael-Brutsch-Internet-troll-Reddit-Creepshot-forum-unmasked-grandfather-Texas.html

(related irony--the comments in response to that article were "moderated in advance"--but that's worth their while, I guess!)

and less handwringing about how "awful" people are and how "something should be DONE." If something should be done, those who are righteously pissed off should DO something. I'd endorse it.

[MineralMan]

64. That works if you know who the person is.

If you don't, it doesn't, and there's the rub. That's what I meant by it taking a lot of work to suss out who some anonymous poster is. It can usually be done, unless the persona is that of someone who is very knowledgeable.

But the 4Chan crowd, which is the source of a lot of Internet trolling of the obscene kind, is pretty good at maintaining anonymity. I've never really tried to ID any of those people, because I rarely encounter them.

On the other hand, there are a lot of ugly trolls who are not particularly careful about anonymity. For them, it's a matter of a couple or four hours to figure out who they are. That's because they're not very bright and leave clues all around, wherever they go. It doesn't take long to find out who they are in real life.

Others don't care and don't bother to try very hard. But they don't care, either. The folks at Conservative Cave, for example. They're obvious and known, but don't care.

[MADem]

68. Piece of cake--give them a blog to go to.

Put it in a sig line---they'll turn up, particularly if they're goaded and baited in the way that they do it to others. If the blog is in UK, where there's no privacy on the net, it's even easier to find out who they are.

That "reddit" guy played the game for years. The longer they play, the more they leave a footprint. Some of these idiots get so invested int Their little "online identity" that they just can't give it up. Their hubris is their undoing.

If troll hunting became fashionable, like yellow or blue fingernails on the teen set, or tattoos or piercings, or watching premium TV series in marathon fashion, we'd see more people participating in the practice, and the trolls would have to find something else to do.

Those CC guys must be unemployed or self-employed...who'd risk making such an ass of themselves when they have jobs they want to keep--then again, their trolling is so lame that no one cares enough to "get back" at them. I think it is humiliating for them--years from now, when their descendants go looking for what great grampa did in his life, they'll see a loser bully beating up on strangers on the internet--what a legacy!

Sometimes, trolling can be so pathetic and obvious that one can see the face behind the troll just by the lameness of their remarks. IMO, the uglier it gets, the more pathetic the troll appears to me. When they're so INVESTED in getting a shocked reaction, it's plain to see that they're the ones who are the "needy" ones in the equation.

[Xyzse]

22. Wasn't there the ability to disable picture posts for a little while?

[Brickbat]

23. Kinja sucks so, so bad.

But it would be nice to see Gawker step up a little here.

[rocktivity]

39. You think Gawker WOULDN'T step up

if this was happening to Gawker itself?


rocktivity

[Brickbat]

56. It is happening to Gawker itself.

Jezebel is a Gawker Media property.

[rocktivity]

63. I'll re-phrase the question, your honor

"You think they wouldn't step up if this was happening to Gawker.com stories?"


rocktivity

[Dawson Leery]

28. "Men's Rights Advocates" (MRA) and Bro-country fans.

Both Vile!

[redqueen]

33. Thank you for noticing the problem and commenting on it! nt

[NealK]

36. That's sick!

[ZombieHorde]

48. Some people (MRAs) have nothing better to with their time

than troll feminists. What sad lives.

[derby378]

59. Why not just place a call to Anonymous?

Someone associated with Jezebel or Gawker probably knows someone with ties to Anonymous. Let them handle it by doing what they do best.

[VScott]

67. That would be like calling the police on the police.

What they do best (or would do best), in this case is post rape porn to Jezebel and Gawker

[Warren DeMontague]

70. Seems to me the quickest technical fix would be to disable graphics in the comments

As referenced upthread... If not for everyone, then for new commenters.

They are looking to have their system block IP addresses... As anyone who has done terms on MIRT knows, that doesn't stop your dedicated repeat trolls.

[JVS]

74. I'm surprised that the comments allowed graphics in the first place.

Comments sections already are notorious for being filled with trolls. Giving them the ability to post images is unbelievably stupid.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. It's way easier to disable animated gifs than to maintain and constantly update a list of 4chan

Troll IPs. At least, that's what I suspect.

[MADem]

77. I can't argue with that. I do think they like the good gifs, though--it's just the bad ones that

ruin the fun for everyone else.

[Warren DeMontague]

78. Having done many terms on MIRT with our own particularly nasty troll(s)

I can say i think a technical fix is probably the ONLY thing that will stop this.

[MADem]

82. Now, the question is, why don't they implement such a fix?

Either limiting the ability to post gifs until one is a "trusted" commenter, or eliminating the ability to do it altogether (which, if you read the comments following the article, was not a popular proposed solution--those gifs are popular on that site).

I wonder --as I have said elsewhere-- if the "problem" hasn't reached the tipping point yet. Right now, the controversy is driving people to the site, where they are being exposed to it and getting a chance to try it on for size. Some people will return as a consequence, and become regular readers. If the trollery reaches a point where it impacts every visit to the site, it might start to drive traffic away, but my sense is that hasn't happened and isn't even close to happening.

There is a way to complain about the posts and get them removed (send complaint to their HELP email) but that's not obvious to a lot of posters, apparently.

[Warren DeMontague]

84. Maybe they feel that losing the ability to respond with the tina fey eyeroll

Would be an unacceptable trade-off?

[MADem]

88. The pushback against eliminating gifs was pretty strong, I noticed.

This one is much-loved,



and it was followed by this one:



I like a good gif, myself. Emphasis on good--as in funny, clever, amusing.

I just don't get the "thrill" of fucking with people on the internet--seems like a not-cool thing to do and childish as well.

[Warren DeMontague]

98. I agree.

But then 4chan isn't really my generation. I'm still at like 2chan.

[MADem]

99. Heh. I am not at any Chan at all, except maybe Charlie--I used to watch those old blatantly

stereotypical movies starring Warner Oland and Keye Luke when I was a kid!

[Warren DeMontague]

104. shake the hand, that shook the hand

of PT Barnum, and ol' Charlie Chan!

[MADem]

76. It's for the amusing kittie gifs, and things like that....

Several of the posters, when this was brought up, were quite insistent that the images should be allowed, that they provided amusement/joy, etc. to the viewers of them, that they shouldn't be punished for the bad behavior of the trolls--that's basically how the arguments went. Apparently the gifs of kitties and people making funny faces are a small but important part of the culture there.

[hlthe2b]

73. This is at a minimum cyberharassment and as such ought to be prosecuted.

I know this is a pipe dream, but free speech does not equate to a right to cyberstalk and abuse.

[MADem]

79. Not defending them, but the trolls would call it "free speech" and it is a private site, so the

site owners could solve the problem by deleting the offensive posts. They choose to not do this (the question is why...? Those page hits?).

Also, unless they were going after the same poster again and again, it would be hard to call it "stalking" of any sort.

These people just like to be asses. They like to shock and disgust. If this were a cooking site, they'd post recipes for shit sandwiches. If it were a religious site, they'd post things considered offensive/blasphemous to the touted faith. They look for a weak spot and exploit it. It's how they have "fun."

[hlthe2b]

80. There is a line beyond which even our rudimentary cyber laws would consider stalking behavior....

The poster has undoubtedly been served notice repeatedly that his (assuming) behavior is not welcome and that they are banished from posting there. It is a gray area, for sure, but I think some of these extreme cases ought to be brought so that we begin to clarify the legal issues.

[MADem]

86. I think it is rude and offensive conduct, but I wouldn't call posting trash on a comment board

"stalking" and -- unless the nastiness was directed at one specific poster -- I don't think any court of law would do so either.

The poster gets banned right after they post the nastiness, so there's no "warning" happening at Gawker--they post once, and get tossed. Then the poster creates a new persona and does the same thing all over again. It's rather like the posters we see here, over and over again, who flame out after a few dozen posts. They get their five hides, and then because their comments are so obviously trolly, they get the PPR.

It's a feature of the anonymous internet; if we don't like it, the only option is to do what a lot of sites are doing now, which is to force people to link in via their facebook accounts--and if they don't have one, they're screwed. Of course, that doesn't stop people from creating fake facebook accounts, either. It does make them go through a little more work, because that facebook is intrusive as hell.

[hlthe2b]

89. Have you seen what they are posting? I'd saying it is walking close to a hate crime

given it is targeted towards women--a clear group to which hate CAN be attached and focused.

This IS NOT JUST RUDE BEHAVIOR.

[MADem]

91. The goal is upset. It has nothing to do with "hate" against a

particular group, as was explained upthread. The goal is to upset the readers, and to use whatever means the troller has at their disposal to accomplish that goal.

If it's a Justin Beiber fan club, the troll would post insulting comments about Justin Beiber and photoshop images to make him look stupid --the more offensive, the better. Find the weak spot, exploit it. Get people angry. Get them posting outraged responses.

It IS just rude behavior--it's nasty, it's unkind, it's unpleasant, it's horrible, it's stupid, it's childish--but it is simply rude behavior. Someone is "winding up" the people who post at that site, and they are doing it to get their silly little jollies. By reacting with "OMG OMG THIS IS THE WORST THING EVER" the troll is getting what they seek. The "OMG OMG" posts give the corporation the page hits and profits that THEY seek. For some people, who prefer to talk about "offense" rather than alert on it, they get the drama that they seek. If people aren't as upset as they are, then they get the internet fight that they seek.

The website chooses to not block it because their users like gifs and they don't want them eliminated, the site doesn't want to track IPs, they don't want to establish "known poster" membership standards, etc. More to the point, the site CHOOSES to leave the door open--they create the conditions that make it possible for anyone to wander in and participate with some rude--yes, rude--speech. The site is private and they have the option of censoring, verifying/controlling membership-- but they choose to not do that. They believe that anonymity at their site is more important than the occasional rude image that they can delete if they receive complaints about it.

This has obviously worked for them, up to this point, anyway. If it will continue to work for them, time will tell.

I can only conclude that there's a monetary element at play, here. People are OUTRAGED, and ISN'T THAT TERRIBLE--and they go to the site (click, click, click) to say just how irritated they are. And then they go to other sites, and provide a link, and tell everyone at THAT site just how AWFUL it all is, and people who read that OTHER site run to the link and read/comment. Click, click, click.

Page hits/profit.

There may be a tipping point up ahead, but they aren't there, yet.

[boston bean]

101. Do you know the people doing this? I presume not,

so how in the world can you state with such certainty the motivation. And if you are assuming/surmising, then others can as well, with just as well thought out case, that has merit.

Why the absolutism? Why the tenacious argumentation?

[MADem]

103. This was discussed upthread. nt

[stevenleser]

83. Agreed. From what I remember of cyberstalking laws, this qualifies.

The folks doing this should be prosecuted.

[MADem]

90. Posting rude crap on a discussion board qualifies as cyberstalking?

In what state?

I find the activity uncivil, but I can't see it rising to the level of "cyberstalking."

[stevenleser]

92. It definitely can be, particularly obscene content. The key is the intent and repeated nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking

Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, a group, or an organization.[1] It may include false accusations, defamation, slander and libel. It may also include monitoring, identity theft, threats, vandalism, solicitation for sex, or gathering information that may be used to threaten or harass.

Cyberstalking is often accompanied by realtime or offline stalking.[2] Both are criminal offenses.[3] Both are motivated by a desire to control, intimidate or influence a victim.[4] A stalker may be an online stranger or a person whom the target knows. He may be anonymous and solicit involvement of other people online who do not even know the target.

Cyberstalking is a criminal offense under various state anti-stalking, slander, and harassment laws. A conviction can result in a restraining order, probation, or criminal penalties against the assailant, including jail.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/223

47 U.S. Code § 223 - Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications

(a) Prohibited acts generally
Whoever—
(1) in interstate or foreign communications—
(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass another person;
(B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly—
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;
(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to abuse, threaten, or harass any specific person;
(D) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or
(E) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any specific person; or
(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,
shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
.
.
.

See additional parts of the statute

[MADem]

95. It's technically not "repeated."

Anyone who posts a rude gif or comment gets banned. One and done. No "repeated" about it.

The website refuses to keep any records on their posters, to include IPs or any identifiers. It's technically not a telephone call, but never mind that. EVERYONE on the site is anonymous, so it's a non-starter trying to single out one poster in a sea of anonymous posters and accuse him of doing what everyone else is doing. And it's technically not obscene, either--I think you'd have a high mountain to climb to try to make that claim. And it's not directed against a "specific person," either--it's designed to outrage anyone--any random individual-- who comes across it and doesn't like that sort of thing.

Your excerpt just doesn't make the points you want it to make.

We're not talking about "child pornography." The FBI would be on that like stink on shit, and they'd probably have no trouble at all tracking down that "anonymous" poster, so that's not the issue at all. We're talking about rude images, gifs, that last a few seconds, and are taken off of "adult" websites (or can even be found at some of these stupid little gif aggregators) and posted not for prurient reasons, but for the express purpose of offending the people reading at that particular site.

And if you know anything about obscenity, it's most certainly in the eye of the beholder. There's a fine line between obscenity and censorship, and "ironic use" of imagery (see Mapplethorp). The poster--should anyone try to prosecute them (and we know that will never happen) could claim the latter--free speech to make a point in opposition.

I think if people do not want to risk seeing rude images, they need to limit their internet browsing to websites with rules that censor that kind of thing. Otherwise, they can--and should--certainly complain about and report such imagery and ask for its removal, but they shouldn't go through life on the net expecting that trolls aren't going to try to poke them in the eye on a regular basis. It's what those assclowns do.

Now, let me once again reiterate that I am not a fan of this kind of thing. I think the trolls are stupid, and childish (I have to say this because, even though I've said it before, a hundred times or more, there will be aggrieved hectorers who will accuse me of supporting the conduct, when all I'm doing is discussing the REALITY of the situation). However, there's lots of "speech" that is rude and offensive, and it's out there. That private website has the right to delete it if they don't like it, but if they don't establish a gate-keeping process on the way into the site, they're going to get all kinds of comments, and some of them are going to be rude and offensive.

As I have said before, and I will say again, the fact that the website hasn't corrected this situation suggests to me that there's money to be made. Outrage=posts/referrals=page clicks=profit.

[stevenleser]

105. It's repeated if at least two of the posters are connected in some way.

Then it is a group acting to repeatedly harass the folks on the site.

[chrisa]

96. Bit of a grey area, Steve.

I would have to disagree, as the target here was a website, not an individual. As nasty as this was, I wouldn't want it to be illegal. That seems a bit draconian.

[stevenleser]

106. The target was the individuals that use the website. I can find examples that show you how this

qualifies. This isn't really a grey area at all.

[chrisa]

107. The problem is, that argument could be used for any type of trolling.

Technically, a troll is always targeting every member of a website.

[AverageJoe90]

85. Nasty shit, man.

I hope that maybe whoever's doing this ends up getting caught somehow.

[Rex]

94. I hate trolls and hope there is a special place in hell for them.

Trolls are anti-people.

[nomorenomore08]

97. ...