Creators, fans and death threats: Talking to Joss Whedon, Neil Gaiman and more on the

[Eggroll]

Interesting read about fans and creators. Surely some food for thought :-)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...nap-story.html

Excerpt:

"Just ask Jennifer Hepler, author of “Women in Game Development: Breaking the Glass Level-Cap.” The game developer previously worked for Electronic Arts-owned BioWare, where she was a writer on such blockbuster games as “Dragon Age: Inquisition” and “Dragon Age II.”

Her home didn’t always have bulletproof glass windows. That development occurred after she contributed to “Dragon Age II.” As one of its core writers, Hepler was singled out for the inclusion of LGBT-friendly characters in the game. Some very vocal hard-core game fans were not happy.

Hepler was on maternity leave when the harassment started.

“All of a sudden, I started getting strange emails from people offering me support in this difficult time,” she recalled. “I was like, 'What are you talking about?' Somebody eventually told me that someone had posted something on [the online forum] Reddit that called me 'the cancer that was destroying BioWare.' When I first heard about it, I tried to laugh it off, but it got crazy very quickly.”

How crazy?

“I was pretty scared,” she said. “There were some pretty awful threats made. There were threats made against my children that were just horrifying.

“I got bulletproof glass in my house. I unlisted my phone number. I quit my Twitter account. I just tried to lay low. I'm lucky that worked. I don't know if it would work now. The mobs have become more empowered. It's a frightening situation out there.”

Another paragraph is concerned with creators, ownership and fanbase entitlement:

"Whedon clarified that he didn’t leave Twitter because people were mean to him -- although, for the record, people were awfully mean to him. Rather, he found himself at the forefront of a new era of fan entitlement that for some creators has raised tricky questions of ownership. Just who deserves a say in the development of pop media — those working to dream it up, or those paying to keep a project afloat?

“I would like always to have a dialogue with the audience, but at the same time you can't create by committee,” Whedon said.

“It is what it is,” said David Ayer, director of Warner Bros.’ upcoming villains-gone-crazy film “Suicide Squad.” “It’s the Roman arena. It’s thumbs up or thumbs down. The crowd votes. Hopefully, my movie doesn’t get executed in the sawdust there. But that’s why the genre has the connection and the power and the audience that it does – because there’s that ownership and there’s that participation.”

It's some thoughts about the pros and cons of the state of pop culture in the age of online media, I guess...

[Endus]

This is why I think we need slightly less anonymity on the Internet. Not that everyone goes by their real names under force of law, but that site providers can connect your account with your real identity, for cases like this when actual threats are made.

Threatening to hurt someone, or their kids, isn't less of a crime because you do it on Twitter or Reddit, rather than over the phone or in an angry note on someone's door. It's criminal, regardless.

[Venant]

This is why I think we need slightly less anonymity on the Internet. Not that everyone goes by their real names under force of law, but that site providers can connect your account with your real identity, for cases like this when actual threats are made.

Threatening to hurt someone, or their kids, isn't less of a crime because you do it on Twitter or Reddit, rather than over the phone or in an angry note on someone's door. It's criminal, regardless.

And what is your solution to dealing with people who make threats? In Europe, people attempt to join ISIS, and the government lets these people run around free until they show up at a church and saw somebody's head off in front of the congregation. Our society cannot even deal with people who are would-be terrorists, and you think we can do something about Twitter trolls?

Or perhaps the issue here is that the threat of the law only works on people who are not violent psychopaths, so in essence such internet identity laws would only serve to silence people who care about their own personal future or people who are legitimately attempting to dissent against powerful organizations/governments. In this case, you scare the people who you by definition don't have to worry about into silence, while being pretty useless in stopping the next actual threat.

[kail]

This is why I think we need slightly less anonymity on the Internet. Not that everyone goes by their real names under force of law, but that site providers can connect your account with your real identity, for cases like this when actual threats are made.

Threatening to hurt someone, or their kids, isn't less of a crime because you do it on Twitter or Reddit, rather than over the phone or in an angry note on someone's door. It's criminal, regardless.

Just way too much activity to monitor IMO. Threats are made too often online, through games, forums, comments sections, etc. and 99.99% of them (I think I'm being generous here) are simply empty threats made by an immature or disturbed person. Some threats are taken seriously like bomb threats to an airline. Others are just one avatar duking it with another.

There is a huge difference between pinging a text through the Internet to some stranger you will never meet and sending a physical note so someone's residential address. The latter I would take seriously.

[Ghaleon]

The article seems to point finger entirely at the fanbase but in atleast the Hepler one it wasn't just the fans.

I was on the BSN during the whole Hepler thing, i 100% am against death threats etc, but it was a two way street her and Bioware aren't innocent victims in the whole incident.

So while i do not condone such behavior, it is important to point out it definitely wasn't just the DA fans.

Just a bit of info for those who didn't frequent the BSN at the time from one who did

[announced]

This is why I think we need slightly less anonymity on the Internet. Not that everyone goes by their real names under force of law, but that site providers can connect your account with your real identity, for cases like this when actual threats are made.

Threatening to hurt someone, or their kids, isn't less of a crime because you do it on Twitter or Reddit, rather than over the phone or in an angry note on someone's door. It's criminal, regardless.

well, a physical note attatched to your door means somebody knows where you live. a spastic kid on reddit or twitter doesnt seem to bother me as much.

imo this woman is overreacting, most threats are simply talk.

[Endus]

And what is your solution to dealing with people who make threats?

That's what the court system and criminal charges are for. Making threats is illegal in most developed nations, at least.

Or perhaps the issue here is that the threat of the law only works on people who are not violent psychopaths, so in essence such internet identity laws would only serve to silence people who care about their own personal future or people who are legitimately attempting to dissent against powerful organizations/governments. In this case, you scare the people who you by definition don't have to worry about into silence, while being pretty useless in stopping the next actual threat.

Nope, people making threats, even if they don't intent to follow through, are the problem. That's exactly the thing I was targeting. If they were actually planning to make good on those threats, that's worse, but that doesn't mean the threats alone are nothing.

Just way too much activity to monitor IMO. Threats are made too often online, through games, forums, comments sections, etc. and 99.99% of them (I think I'm being generous here) are simply empty threats made by an immature or disturbed person. Some threats are taken seriously like bomb threats to an airline. Others are just one avatar duking it with another.

There is a huge difference between pinging a text through the Internet to some stranger you will never meet and sending a physical note so someone's residential address. The latter I would take seriously.

I'm not saying "monitor". Just that a site's owner or manager should be able to connect a user to a real person, the same way someone running a dating service could, or an amateur sports league. I don't care if everyone on the team calls you "Dutch", and that's not your real name, as long as when you threaten someone, the guy running knows who you actually are (and using false identity stuff for this adds fraud to the list of charges, if they can track you down).

Then, if something DOES come up, the cops can follow the trail relatively easily (with the appropriate warrants and such).

And I'm going to disagree on the "immature or disturbed person". They're behaving so poorly they've engaged in criminal threats. That's a step beyond that. We wouldn't accept that in a face-to-face environment, and I don't see why we should over the Internet.

Sure, most of these threats are empty. So are the bomb threats a kid calls in to his school so he can have a day off. Should we not punish that kid, for the threat, either? That isn't how this works.

[Venant]

Nope, people making threats, even if they don't intent to follow through, are the problem. That's exactly the thing I was targeting. If they were actually planning to make good on those threats, that's worse, but that doesn't mean the threats alone are nothing.

The PRISM domestic surveillance program in the US is an example of what would be needed in order to achieve what you are supporting. The problem with a program like this is that it gives governments the power to rewrite the history of individuals. Every single thing you ever post online would have to be filed away and attributed to your real life identity. Eventually there would be enough information to portray you in any manner that is useful to those running the system.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not saying "monitor". Just that a site's owner or manager should be able to connect a user to a real person, the same way someone running a dating service could, or an amateur sports league. I don't care if everyone on the team calls you "Dutch", and that's not your real name, as long as when you threaten someone, the guy running knows who you actually are (and using false identity stuff for this adds fraud to the list of charges, if they can track you down).

So essentially that would turn moderators on a site like this into agents of the state? This sounds like the system of informants that was deployed in Soviet Russia.

[Ryme]

This is why I think we need slightly less anonymity on the Internet. Not that everyone goes by their real names under force of law, but that site providers can connect your account with your real identity, for cases like this when actual threats are made.

Threatening to hurt someone, or their kids, isn't less of a crime because you do it on Twitter or Reddit, rather than over the phone or in an angry note on someone's door. It's criminal, regardless.

I'm not sure I agree, I think internet anonymity is perhaps the greatest asset that the modern world has. I agree that making threats against someone's life is a heinous crime, but I don't agree with reducing everyone's anonymity to solve it.

Frankly though, I have to concede I don't have any better alternatives to hand.

[Deleted]

well, a physical note attatched to your door means somebody knows where you live. a spastic kid on reddit or twitter doesnt seem to bother me as much.

imo this woman is overreacting, most threats are simply talk.

She wants some Sarkezian monies judging by her bs rhetoric, she probably wrote the note herself, that fucking bitch...

[Deleted]

This is why I think we need slightly less anonymity on the Internet. Not that everyone goes by their real names under force of law, but that site providers can connect your account with your real identity, for cases like this when actual threats are made.

Now, it's not exactly surprising, that you of all people have such "ideas" to increase the security.
But there are many IP and provider tracing programs in place to ensure, that the police and other officials with the required competencies are able to track down a person, which made threats under the guise of the "anonymity" in the internet.

But on the other hand, this idea of yours would only give more power into the hands of people, who are neither competent or impartial enough to warrant such a far reaching insight into a persons privacy.
People with this kind of power could also misuse this information to incite a "witch-hunt" against people, who they simply disagree with.

I would really be very concerned, if such far reaching privileges would be placed into the hands of people like you f.e..

[nextormento]

This is why I think we need slightly less anonymity on the Internet. Not that everyone goes by their real names under force of law, but that site providers can connect your account with your real identity, for cases like this when actual threats are made.

I'm not saying "monitor". Just that a site's owner or manager should be able to connect a user to a real person, the same way someone running a dating service could, or an amateur sports league.

We don't need any less anonymity.
We don't need that, the same way we don't need mailing companies to attach postcards to their sender's identity.

They should have the possibility to only provide services to folks that relinquish their identity. Folks who fear for online threats can simply only register with the sites that have that policy.
This, given the abundance, and credibility, of threats, should be a very popular and demanded service.

It's a clear case of liberties: people should be free to go anonymous, and they should be free to relinquish that anonymity.
Considering data security is less than ideal, even on high profile sites, companies should be free to not take the very taxing burden of handling real identity.

[Strangebrew]

People with this kind of power could also misuse this information to incite a "witch-hunt" against people, who they simply disagree with.

You mean, basically what his side have been doing for ages?
No wonder he wants to remove anonymity.

[Ærion]

So essentially that would turn moderators on a site like this into agents of the state? This sounds like the system of informants that was deployed in Soviet Russia.

The thought alone makes nanny-state fanatic, ban-whoever-you-disagree-with Endus cream his pants, I'm sure.

Here's some food for your thoughts: what happens when those without any scruples or morals start using your identity for other things. They didn't like your political/religious/whatever stance on something? simple enough to get your name/location out there to more extremist parties. With the ability to know who you are throughout all of your online personae, you don't even have the benefit of dropping your identity if/when you have a change of attitude.

Anyone that thinks a person should be punished (criminally, police and all) for writing (WRITING!) a few mean words online in the heat of the moment on something they feel passionately about, is a fucking degenerate.

Find dead animals/other disgusting things on your doorstep? call the cops.
Find threatening notes in your mail? call the cops.
Get death threats and have a reason to believe they can follow up? call the cops.
Get insulted/offended by something written online? grow a fucking backbone.

[Demoneq]

This is why I think we need slightly less anonymity on the Internet. Not that everyone goes by their real names under force of law, but that site providers can connect your account with your real identity, for cases like this when actual threats are made.

Threatening to hurt someone, or their kids, isn't less of a crime because you do it on Twitter or Reddit, rather than over the phone or in an angry note on someone's door. It's criminal, regardless.

I agree with the general idea (treat over-the-Internet death or violence threats same as any other threats, investigate them and prosecute the perpetrators), but not with letting site providers (who are not government institutions responsible for law enforcement etc.) get access to people's private information (which is none of their business most of the time), which you can't know what will they do with later. So, what should be done in such situations (and is very much possible, technically anyway, law about it might differ between countries etc.), is getting the identity from the Internet provider of the person in question (as mentioned, it's possible) and go from there to catch them, not let the random website owners get access to something that shouldn't be their business in the first place.

Besides, at least as far as having to provide information about yourself when creating an account, there's nothing stopping anyone from providing false data, and if they are planning to do something punishable by law, you can bet they will not give them their real name etc. (ok, some may be stupid enough to do that, but I bet most won't)

[nextormento]

That's a good idea!
We could extend this and implement it in more places.
How about neighbourhoods for women that don't want to get raped?

I see you're having trouble differentiating private companies from the state.

[nextormento]

That doesn't matter.
Threatening people's lives is illegal everywhere, in public and in private companies.

I know.
This is entirely irrelevant to my post, though.

[tehealadin]

I'm not sure I agree, I think internet anonymity is perhaps the greatest asset that the modern world has. I agree that making threats against someone's life is a heinous crime, but I don't agree with reducing everyone's anonymity to solve it.

Frankly though, I have to concede I don't have any better alternatives to hand.

I agree. As bad as these cunts are, I think it is a price worth paying for anonymity, it protects freedom of expression for people living in oppressive, authoritarian regimes, as well as whistleblowers. How to make it more difficult for these assholes to get away with making threats? Like you, I don't have an answer. I would resist any site where I need to link in my real identity, and probably stop using it. If I did use it (and there are one or two that I do use), I either don't make comments, or am very careful about what comments I do make, and avoid certain topics altogether. There are certain cult like extremists out there that would target you just for having a different opinion, no matter how civil you are.

Also, if I was being targeted by assholes, then they would be able to get my real name, and from there might be able to deduce where I live and work etc. Anonymity also protects me to some extent too. I won't claim it is a great setup, and the downside is that it makes it more difficult to go after criminals.

[nextormento]

It seems like you are promoting a 'split'-internet.
A new part of the internet where you can hang out without threats.
But then you'd be accepting that there is a part where people are "free" to make online threats.

I'm extending the real world to the internet. You're not free from threatening and anonymous postcards.
I'm not sure why people treat internet as if it was a different world, and make special rules for it because reasons.

If anything, eroding anonymity from the internet would create a split-world. One in which online communications are less protected.

[tehealadin]

It seems like you are promoting a 'split'-internet.
A new part of the internet where you can hang out without threats.
But then you'd be accepting that there is a part where people are "free" to make online threats.

People being free to make online threats is also a place where people can expose corruption, criminality etc in a way that reduces the chances of them being punished for it.

People making threats online is out of order. However most of these threats aren't real and it is very rare for any physical harm to come around (I don't mean to downplay the impact of psychological harm, I am aware that it can be very distressing), however people are getting locked up and executed in parts of the world for exposing the evil deeds of governments/fighting for human rights, is very real and goes beyond emotional trauma. I don't like that there is a price to pay for this, but I think it is worth it.

EDIT

I did hear an interesting idea about Twitter, I don't remember if this was to be policy, or just a proposal, but the idea was get everyone verified, if you refuse, your account gets flagged as unverified, and people can change a setting to block them, so that only verified people can communicate with them. Not a total fix but it would almost certainly cut down on direct threats.

EDIT

Another reason why I am worried by this, and I didn't want to go here, as I know where it will likely lead, but I think it is fair and reasonable to say that not all threats are equal, and on certain platforms, there are no guarantees that removing anonymity will be done purely to prevent threats, the fear that twitter would use this to shut down and punish people who espouse political opinions (or don't follow certain dogmas) not in line with there own isn't 100% tinfoil hat stuff, it isn't massively widespread as far as I can tell, but there is some evidence that they have it in them to act this way.

There is a tribal element to this. Not all threats, or to broaden it out, abuse is equal, with the tribe most likely to call for action, only really concerned with threats/abuse made against its members, but totally fine by threats/abuse made by its members to the outside group (often feeling it is justified), with a habit of misrepresenting valid criticism as abuse, and I would worry that in some places (though not all) it would be used as a stick to beat people into towing the party line, even if they aren't members of that party, enabling them to enact real world consequences for people who disagree with them.

I don't have a silver bullet for this problem, as I agree that threats (less so abuse, but I think it is naive to think that this would be limited to threats) goes beyond simple speech, and if you threaten people then there can and should be consequences. However if you remove anonymity to achieve this, I worry where it will lead. From some of the people promoting this route, I simply do not trust that their intentions are pure, and I do not trust that all places would apply rules consistently, and I worry where it might lead to, in terms of freedom of expression (again, I don't think threats fall under freedom of expression), in the West it might be less of a deal (at worse, you will need to avoid criticism of certain dogmas, and not talk about certain things, if anything), but for those living in authoritarian regimes with poor human rights records, anonymity can be the difference between life and death.

And I am not talking about legal rights, I am talking about the spirit of the idea (which I think is so important), which has been the web's biggest strength and is ensured by anonymity (which in many ways is its biggest weakness). How do you find a happy compromise? I don't have an answer to that. Which is why I would go for anonymity, until I see an option that can bridge the gap between nailing people who make threats and protecting freedom of expression.