I'm not entirely sure what we're talking about here. Is it that anonymous communication is a double edged sword or that teenagers are kind of evil?
Either way, it would be very disturbing to see a company give out customer information without a warrant or similar, wouldn't it? Especially if the customer is a minor.
> I'm not entirely sure what we're talking about here. Is it that anonymous communication is a double edged sword or that teenagers are kind of evil?
We're talking about a medium which mixes the two (and more), creating a very ill outcome (writing about group rape is no joke, and I'm sure that's not an exceptional case).
> Either way, it would be very disturbing to see a company give out customer information without a warrant or similar, wouldn't it?
This is not correct. From the article:
"A student who felt that he or she had been the target of an attack on Yik Yak could theoretically pursue defamation charges and subpoena the company to find out who had written the post."
> [...] creating a very ill outcome (writing about group rape is no joke [...]
Everybody knows it's not a joke — everybody but kids — and everybody knows that.
> This is not correct.
It's the last item in the FAQ[1]:
> The federal Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.,
> restricts Yik Yak’s disclosure of user account information without
> the lawful consent of the account holder or unless authorized by a
> properly issued warrant, court order, or subpoena.
Effective 1986[2].
We're not talking about better education, right? Not building/using apps like Yik Yak?
If Yik Yak's privacy policy is to be believed, they only store IP address and GPS location (and account id) for each post. You'd have to do an additional step of contacting ISP or phone company with the information to actually find the person. The android app requires the identity permission, but I can't tell if it sends that information back to a server somehow. They claim they don't gather that information for accounts.
First, this is a serious problem. Severe bullying is one of the better outcomes if you have unrestricted, anonymous localized trolling.
Second, it seems like this could be easily fixed without compromising anonymity, using standard moderation techniques. And Yik Yak can in theory do even better than an online discussion board - acquiring a new phone number is much higher cost than creating a new online account.
In fact, this feature could enable Yik Yak to be one of the better online communities, since effective moderation is actually possible while still maintaining anonymity.
There are already dozens of social networks with "effective moderation". Maybe those people who use Yik Yak are using it just because there is no censoring? I bet if they add moderation, the users will migrate to the next thing with no moderation. Please, stop "solving" social problems by limiting free speech.
I just installed the app to try it out. I posted a request for good books to read. After a few minutes a couple people replied with books and authors, and their post scores trickled down to negative numbers until they disappeared.
Theory: The same way that Yik Yak punishes competitor spam by incrementally lowering the score until it's modded out of existence, it detects human names in posts and applies the same punishment in an attempt to prevent bullying.
acquiring a new phone number is much higher cost than creating a new online account
Not really. Apps like Burner let you get a temporary phone number for $3-4 (well, that is still a higher cost, but makes switching around more or less trivial)
>> acquiring a new phone number is much higher cost than creating a new online account
> Not really.
That is a much higher cost. The conversation around microtransactions is in large part about the cognitive load of having to pay for each action, and something as high as $3-4 is significantly more. I can't imagine that wouldn't deter large numbers of casual bullies, and I can't see that not having a significant effect on bullying in general.
It always boggles my mind that people would rather not see the true nature and thoughts of their community than actually address the underlying social environment that makes those thoughts acceptable to air. Further I find it worrying that people's response is to want to hunt down and punish individual people for airing thoughts when on YY it is clear that the only way they stay visible is because a GROUP of people actively agrees with them.
Don't you WANT to know that there are biggots out there so you can actually address the problem!??!
This is an oversimplification, which is not taking into account human nature and especially social dynamics, which makes things more complex.
Being offensive towards somebody, in isolation, is "normal", but in the context of a group of peers, imitation can fuel a chain reaction, which turns individual offense to group aggression. Obviously we're talking about verbal aggression, but when somebody writes about gang rape, then it's serious business even if it's not real.
There is a significant difference between "airing thoughts" and cyberbullying.
Those are not necessarily "agreed thoughts"; in the context, they can be seen as "lack" of thought, that is, groupthink of people who has little to do with their minds in a certain moment.
Selling a gun is one thing. Putting a gun in a public place with a sign with written "use me" is a very different thing. In the same way, internet comments are already used to channel anger because of their anonymity; if a medium adds groupthink and proximity to anonymity, things develop on a different level.
I don't see how this is an oversimplification. Airing thoughts are different from bullying only in so far as who hears them. This can be seen from the fact that nearly all uni harassment policies define harassment based on the "victim's" perception of being harassed regardless of the intent of the "perpetrator." Furthermore you can't bully someone who refuses to grant you power over their emotions, you can call them as many names as you want but if they just laugh at you and move on then good luck.
That people can be affected by words that people write about them and feel bad as a result is sort of taken for granted (I usually go on a rant at this point about how insane I find it that people willingly grant others power over their feelings but that doesn't usually go over well). The fact that someone can now hear what other people are saying about them is the least of the problems. Spreading rumors behind someone's back can be far more damaging not only to the individual but also to the community as a whole. The fact that anonymity lowers the threshold for public expression of thoughts means that things that were previously aired in private in closed circles are now visible.
From the perspective of someone who cares about their community the fact that I can now see hateful behavior is critical for taking action to prevent REAL harm that can arise from group think. The fact that people are far more likely to agree with something (eg by voting) than actually state it themselves does exacerbate this problem, but upvoting of hurtful comments is a community problem and reveals that something fundamental has broken down in that community and needs to be addressed at the level of the community. I would even argue that it is worse than thoughtless or unthinking: it is habitual, and that makes it even harder to combat.
As a final note hateful speech is something that you don't only want to address when someone is offended by it. The fact that someone is not bothered by being called names does not mean that the behavior of name calling does not need to be immediately addressed and corrected. Right now the only time this happens is when someone complains which is an absolutely horrible system.
If I threw a party and let anyone who showed up in, over a short period of time, obnoxious young males would take over the party, driving everyone else who didn't care to put up with that away. This actually happens routinely to naive teenagers.
Going online isn't any different. Being obnoxious isn't adding anything to any conversation. No one is getting enlightened. We all know the vast array of bigotry out there. Unless we're under a rock, we're exposed to it daily. The same goes for trolling and other forms of harassment. Civility and careful thought are cornerstones of debate and viewpoint sharing.
Exactly. Rather than pretend all is good, I'd want to know that people around me consider me a hippo - it allows for a conscious decision to [lose weight | move to nicer people | get over it]
Interestingly enough, my experience using Yik Yak at a small liberal arts college is quite different. As the article notes, posts get removed if their score reaches -5. My observations are that basically any post with any negative connotations whatsoever is almost immediately downvoted to deletion. It's the opposite of what this article describes: overmoderation rather than undermoderation.
Here at UT Austin, racism and sexism abound on Yik Yak. Lots of frats and sororities around, so making fun of minorities, calling members of $unpopular_sorority fat, or calling $unpopular-frat gay (naturally the two insults of choice) is a good way to get upvotes.
I recently read an online conversation about how to spoof GPS coordinates to get in on and even skewing discourse in target areas. Sounds like a lot of fun, unless of course you factor in that most users probably aren't mature enough to critically judge what appears on their screens.
My university is one of the universities listed in the article for having issues with Yik Yak. The university president was rumored to be considering banning the app, which is a functionality supported by the creators to fence off a certain geographical region. The yaks made in my area can get particularly nasty, but I'm not sure what the appropriate response should be. Most of them aren't specific enough to be illegal - inciting violence, harassment, etc.
Comments made on Yik Yak also was a big motivator for a series of protests on my campus around the time of the Ferguson protests, which is unusual for a socially conservative campus with little social activism.
My opinion on the appropriate response: downvote, click report and ignore.
I know that can be hard, and comments can be hurtful. But unless the internet changes in a fundamental way, we have to learn not to take attacks from strangers personally.
Unless of course you happen to know who does it. You can also try changing the culture, but that's hard on the scale of a college.
I was wondering this weekend about an anonymous chat app, where abusive or nasty comments were changed by the service, in one of many ways, like reversing the focus of the comment, negating it, or simply changing it to something like "I like roses; they are pretty and smell nice". And the more someone tries to be obnoxious, the more it changes their comments. Almost like a chat version of the justice zone from the BBC comedy series Red Dwarf, where you were not able to do any wrong, as it came straight back to you.
Two fraternity guys make an app for anonymous posts. Genius! Never in a million years would I think this was something worthwhile to make or that it would contribute in any meaningful way to any community. The bit about empowering individuals in a community to level the playing field is especially hilarious.
The problem is that 20-somethings don't have the required gray matter to foresee the consequences of their actions and by many definitions they're not even fully realized humans yet. I attribute this trend of throwing money at such individuals to the geniuses in SV like PG, a16z, etc. It turns out you don't need fully realized humans to do a random walk among shitty ideas to see if one of them sticks. Evolutionary tactics will do it for you.
I'd be curious if the content of these posts is genuinely worse than the things they say to each other with boring old human speech.
Just because the awful-ness isn't normally shouted into a megaphone, doesn't mean it's not there. My high school shortened the lunch break because of how horrible the girls were being to each-other when they had free time. Not effective of course.
I was going to gloat about how I don't use something like yik yak, but then I realized I'm anonymous here, and that HN employs heavy handed moderation to deal with near anonymous chat.
Except that you aren't anonymous here. You are pseudonymous which is very different because you have a consistent identifier allowing people to interact with you and review your history and posts and attack you. When you are anonymous it would require significant effort to identify a user using lexical analysis or the like and the false positive rate would likely be quite high.
Yik Yak has been racking up some controversial media coverage for quite some time now, and before it came along, some of its predecessors were doing the same. I doubt this is the result of some intentional strategy on a competitor's part. And if it were, it's a short-sighted strategy. All that this bad press is accomplishing is getting Yik Yak more and more coverage, and thus, more and more public exposure. It might also have a "forbidden fruit" effect: making non-users more and more curious about using it.
I'm sure you've heard the old expression, "No publicity is bad publicity." There's some truth to that, especially when your business or brand kinda-sorta benefits from being seen as edgy or controversial.
Please. The service is controversial to begin with and they seemed to have shady practices in trimming out posts mentioning competitors. This imagined anti-competitive thing is just fear mongering. A quick search here shows less than a handful of posts that might be considered negative.
This is really disturbing and i think its the tipping point on anonymity. I don't know about you but i'm ready to give up my freedoms for the sake of some people not being offended. Shutting down yikyak or suing them to death would be a good start.
Either way, it would be very disturbing to see a company give out customer information without a warrant or similar, wouldn't it? Especially if the customer is a minor.