Project: Movie Review (Take two)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6j8AznPiWqyTjF6TF9URVI5TzA/view?usp=sharing

FINALLY think I got this working. If the link still doesn’t work for you, please send me an email.

Project of Lucinda Krahl, Emily Claps, and Jack Magiera

The Troll Toll

I’d like to say I have a certain degree of experience with trolls, being a nerd that uses the internet and plays video games pretty often. What is described in the readings and my experiences with trolling on the internet differ in content and style, but for the most part, the general context and purpose of trolling is more or less universal .

Let’s start by defining this thing. Trolling doesn’t just mean being cruel or ruthless to someone on the internet. It doesn’t only refer to bullying or flaming. Trolling is, put simply, acting in a way that will elicit a response from someone. This can come in the form of verbal abuse or harassment, or simply by making a dumb comment to rile up commenters. Some trolls are essentially harmless and honestly hilarious: even if you hate the idea of trolling, you must admit Ken M is a master at his craft. But some trolls are vicious and toxic: having played online video games before, I’ve seen some terrible terrible things typed in the chat.

But the more violent side of trolling can extend far beyond that. When institutionalized prejudice is given a strong, anonymous voice, the result can be horrifying. Having read the article and listened to the podcast about the Lindy West incident, I can’t even think about how I would respond to being harassed by a fake twitter account in the name of my deceased father.

The podcast related to this incident shed some light on the causes of trolling. The former troll admitted it was a point of weakness in his life, and he had just been trying to feel in control of something. He targeted this woman because she was confident and unafraid of her flaws, which was something he had been struggling with, and frankly he also targeted her because she was a woman. Because of anonymity, trolling is easy, free, and void of real consequence. You can simply type a few words, click the ‘post’ button, and instantly feel a fleeting surge of superiority.

In terms of moral obligations as companies, I do not think companies have any obligation to try to mitigate trolling (but it is in their interest to do so anyway). I do believe that there is an obligation to help prevent harassment, including having a measured degree of anonymity and freedom of speech, providing tools to block/report trolls and abusers, and put in place harassment and stalking policies to decide when content crosses the line.

I honestly don’t want to categorize anonymity as a blessing or a curse. There are times when I prefer to be anonymous; I don’t want my real name connected with my gaming profile because I don’t want people to find out how actually terrible I am at Heroes of the Storm. But there are certainly times when requiring personal information is important – I wouldn’t want anonymous strangers being able to comment on my Facebook pictures. And I certainly could have done without the troll account that commented “haha sux” on an Instagram post memorializing my dead dog. These are cases where anonymity and by extension trolling is mitigated by privacy and “real name” features created by technology companies.

I do not think that trolling as it stands is a real “we need to deal with this ASAP” issue, because trolling will be around as long as anonymity is around (and possibly longer). The harmful cousins of trolling (stalking, abuse, harassment) are a major problem, and hopefully the development of security features in social media will provide more resources to victims of such abuse. In the meantime, I’ve found that the best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them (hard as it may be – again, I don’t know how I would have reacted if I were in Lindy West’s shoes). Battle not with monsters…

 

Net Neutrality

I had always seen the anxious and fervent Reddit threads proclaiming the need for net-neutral legislation. I never really understood the hype behind it, although I was able to understand the basic principles, as an engineer and as a heavy consumer of the Internet.

The idea of a neutral internet stems from the fact that packets of data traffic should be treated equally, regardless of origin, destination, or content. The argument is that this grants consumers a degree of privacy as well as protection from monopolistic and price-gouging practices from ISPs. An argument is that this protection is good for innovation in the form of small business and startups – entrepreneurs who can’t afford a “fast-lane” for their high-traffic app or product would still be able to compete in a fair marketplace.

The arguments against net neutrality claim that such regulations actually stifle innovation and create a worse internet experience for most consumers. Opponents of net neutrality understand that Netflix might account for X percentage of internet traffic so there is no reason that they shouldn’t be able to pay for a higher throughput. Such an arrangement is (arguably) better for consumers and for content producers.

Another argument against net neutrality is that the Internet has never been “open” in the sense that packets are not discriminated against. Even since early on in the days of the Internet, ISPs have given precedence to certain packets based on content and purpose. For example, packets containing data bound for services such as Telnet and other interactive protocols received higher “precedence” than non-interactive and less immediately needed packets. So any push to make the internet more “neutral” would not just be a safeguard against manipulation that harms consumers; it would actively disrupt a standard of data routing that is a current staple of the Internet.

In all, I think net neutrality is unnecessary and ultimately harmful. Though protecting consumers from price-gouging and other harmful practices is important and definitely a worthy concern, the best way to go about it is not with sweeping and heavy-handed regulation. Leaving the internet generally open to new protocols and allowing the old ones to continue is important for the continuation of an available and well-maintained internet. Regulations should be put in place to keep consumers safe from certain practices (the thought of paying ISPs for access to certain websites is terrifying, when you think about it compared to the current cable TV model), but sweeping regulations and reclassifications like some are proposing is simply stifling to innovation and efficiency, and an open-market solution is far preferable.