[Reader-list] what is to be done?

[Aarti Sethi]

This is not a response to all the suggestions that have come regarding what
can be done individually - thanks all, and lets keep talking about this some
more...

Just a quick response to Prakash who expressed shock and horror at my
advocating free speech on the one hand, and filtering on the other, and then
offered pious platitudes about democracy. Thanks comrade, but as usual you
have failed to read my mail with care. At no point do i ask that mails be
banned, censored, or moderated. Nowhere have I asked Sarai as an institution
or the moderator to step in. I am not even asking these individuals to
desist from expressing views which I clearly abhor.

I have asked only that just as everyone is entitled to say what they wish
to, I am entitled to hear what I wish to. This is no way against an absolute
free speech principle. Nor is saying that in my opinion some posts do not
deserve to be responded to against a free speech principle, or against
reason, or against democracy.

And I would urge you to please take a quick look at the censorship record of
the party you belong to before you teach anyone else any lessons regarding
their commitment to free speech.

best as always
Aarti

On Jan 24, 2008 6:13 PM, Nishant Shah <itsnishant at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Radhika,
> I wish you would not take all conversations personally, unless cited in
> the
> text. I, for one, did not have you in my mind when I was talking about the
> camps. More specifically, it didn't matter, when I was writing the mail,
> as
> to where the camps are and what they are saying. As somebody who has been
> a
> moonlighting techie and researcher on technology, I was merely trying to
> think of a constructive way of dealing with a problem that open
> cyberspatial
> forums often face - two or sometimes more camps, using the freedom of the
> space to abuse and hurl insults, hijacking other threads or responses for
> their own personal good, and exhibiting Trollish behaviour that often
> borders on acute schizophrenia.
>
> In both the suggestions I gave, the idea was that if there is tagging,
> than
> a diverse reader list can become more manageable. I am not here to believe
> that everything that is written on the list is of equal interest to every
> single reader. The tags help us manage that. Also, if a thread about women
> registering protest in manipur turns out to be a discussion on what is the
> national, who is the national, and how muslims are all terrorists, I
> think,
> as a reader, one would have better discernment about what one wants to
> read
> and what one doesn't. A tendency to press on the 'Reply' button on an
> email,
> without changing the subject, leads to a lot of clutter in one's very
> limited internet time and resources. Thus, a tagging system, warns (like
> the
> warnings on cigarette packets), that some information might not be
> suitable
> for the users who are not looking for it.
>
> In the second option, I was suggesting a flagging and abuse as a
> suggestion
> because it allows the users to steer clear of certain kind of
> conversations.
> If you claim that you do not consider the origin of the responses on the
> list, I will take it at face value. I would also be extremely interested
> in
> how you can be enamoured by the pseudonymous structures of cyberspatial
> forums so as to alienate the writing from the writer to such an extent,
> that
> like in Joycean worlds, the writer is only sitting somewhere far away,
> paring her finger nails. I, on the other hand, and I am sure there are
> many
> others like me, do look at the pseudonymous (sometimes personal)
> identities
> of the writers. It allows us to make more sensitive arguments and
> sympathetic readings and also make us aware of where they are coming from.
> In which case, it would be interesting to see how these IDs are reflected.
> Also add to the fact that if we are talking about a certain distributed
> communities, then it is a good idea to see how people might be reacting to
> people rather than what they are saying. It might actually cut down on the
> number of mails that are simply well disguised (and in most cases, not
> even
> disguised) personal hate war. Fight your battles elsewhere (the personal
> kinds) and make space for more arguments - that is the rationale that I
> was
> promoting. I am not sure if it fits everybody or not.
>
> This was a constructive way out rather than opting for single person
> moderation or banning or censorship. That was the issue of this mail. That
> is what I will stick to talking about. You are most welcome to draw from
> your own Bengali free speech experience. But surely you are not suggesting
> even there that the speech was not mediated and free of technological
> tools.
> I was suggesting a way by which technology enables human discernment. You
> have turned it into a question of technology deciding for human beings.
> They
> are interesting formulations. And maybe we should shift it to another
> thread
> and talk more.
>
> Thanks for your intervention, and for forcing me to clarify my stand
> point,
> warmly
> Nishant.
> P.S. I would be grateful if you do not attribute me with extra H's at the
> end of my name. It just makes minding my aiches so much more of a pain!
>
> On Jan 24, 2008 5:25 PM, <radhikarajen at vsnl.net> wrote:
>
> > Dear Nishanth,
> >
> >  thanks for illuminating the minds and hearts of members on the readers
> > list. For Tapas, the debate is to win, for me debate and discussion is
> to
> > exchange thoughts and review them, if found useful for fruitful life use
> > them, but  the very fact that open mind is absent in many is the cause
> of
> > concern.
> >
> >      If any one does not tow the line, the typical response is to shun
> the
> > thoughts ? Well, for me I like to read and mull over each of the
> thoughts
> > without bothering much about from which id the thought has originated,
> but I
> > may or may not agree with those thoughts, I respect the thoughts.
>  Without
> > even reading the thought and total rejection of any thoughts shows only
> the
> > typical "intellectual" mindset of the leftist idealogy where as long as
> you
> > are yes men you are with them or otherwise you are not theirs, such
> become
> > others. ?
> >  When intellectuals in Bengal protested against the crude behaviour of
> the
> > cadres, initial response was to use filters, with voters,.  Guns and
> bullets
> > and violence, were not effective filters but power of thoughts is such
> that
> > good thoughts will rise to awaken the intellectual at any point of time
> and
> > make him/her think, as whether the continued support to the wrongs by
> > handful thinkers in the politburo is right or incorrect.
> >
> >   So filters of the technology or the  non response will not help as
> good
> > thoughts for humanity always tug at the conscious mind.
> >
> >  Regards.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Nishant Shah <itsnishant at gmail.com>
> > Date: Thursday, January 24, 2008 5:01 pm
> > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] what is to be done?
> > To: Tapas Ray <tapasrayx at gmail.com>
> > Cc: reader-list at sarai.net
> >
> > > Thanks to the power of mail filtering, I, like Tapas also have
> > > been marking
> > > mails from these ids as 'suspicious' and filing them only for
> > > later reading
> > > - to indeed, have the perverse pleasure, the same as scratching at
> > > a scab.
> > >
> > > I just wanted to clarify that the tagging system does not require a
> > > moderator at all. I was suggesting that the users be forced to
> > > define the
> > > tags to their mails before they are acceptable to the reader list.
> > > The idea,
> > > as I said, was to help users remember what the discussion was
> > > about - there
> > > are so many hijackings in sight - and also to warn the readers
> > > that these
> > > mails might be dealing with material that they might offensive or
> > > problematic. The tagging can be introduced as an automated option
> > > ratherthan requiring manual intervention from somebody acting as
> > > moderator on the
> > > Sarai list.
> > >
> > > The question of abuse, again, is not about revoking rights or
> > > about banning
> > > somebody, or even making a judgement call on somebody through a
> > > centralisedstructure. It is simply a way by which IDs which are
> > > constantly found
> > > abusive by members of the community, can be flagged as such- more
> > > like a
> > > caution sign to the rest of the readers. I was suggesting both
> > > these options
> > > as technical solutions which would require miminal human
> > > intervention from a
> > > 'Moderator' who might other wise need therapy for sifting through
> > > the amount
> > > of Troll mail that flies through the list :)
> > >
> > > cheers
> > > Nishant
> > >
> > > On Jan 24, 2008 4:31 PM, Tapas Ray <tapasrayx at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree with Aarti and Nishant. I have been using filters quite
> > > > effectively against these individuals, whose crudity entertained me
> > > > initially in a perverse sort of way, but became tiresome after a
> > > while.> There is no need for anyone to engage with them, since it
> > > is now clear
> > > > that their objective is not to take part in rational debate but to
> > > > destroy this space by swamping it with hate speech. (The reason, I
> > > > think, is that they know they lack the ability to engage in reasoned
> > > > debate, and cannot hope to "win" it.)
> > > >
> > > > Mail filters are effective and can be put in place by anyone in
> > > a few
> > > > minutes. Nishant's suggestion about tagging and reporting abuse
> > > is also
> > > > good, but having such a system would mean someone, acting as
> > > moderator,> having to spend part of his/her day because of the
> > > actions of these
> > > > individuals - and I do not think they deserve so much importance.
> > > >
> > > > Tapas
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nishant Shah wrote:
> > > > > Hi Arti, All,
> > > > > I have been a silent lurker in these days of virulent
> > > invective and
> > > > > hate-speech that have unfolded on the reader-list. I haven't
> > > been silent
> > > > > because I had nothing to say, or that I was not provoked. I
> > > haven't been
> > > > > silent because I did not feel equally angered, sometimes to
> > > such an
> > > > extent
> > > > > that I had to walk away from the computer and swear for the
> > > nth time
> > > > that I
> > > > > will just unsubscribe from the reader's list. I have been
> > > silent because
> > > > I
> > > > > do not think I have the vocabulary to counter arguments that
> > > are based
> > > > on
> > > > > nothing more than personal prejudices, or the resources to
> > > deal with
> > > > emails
> > > > > that read a little more than poison pen.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, there is also another reason why I prefer to be
> > > silent, as
> > > > missiles
> > > > > are hurled from one end to the other, one camp offering peace
> > > flags and
> > > > > reasons, the other camp packaging the same in mails that
> > > resemble hand
> > > > made
> > > > > grenades used in violent spaces. Out of long habit of dwelling on
> > > > various
> > > > > digital forms, I have realised that the behaviour (read as
> > > writing) of
> > > > some
> > > > > of the members who have come to haunt this particular digital
> > > platform,> can
> > > > > only be classified as 'Troll'. (
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll).
> > > > > And as the classic motto goes, 'Do Not Feed The Troll.' There
> > > have been
> > > > many
> > > > > discussions on the reader-list about questions of censorship,
> > > > moderation,
> > > > > facilitation and so on. Each time a particularly venomous
> > > bunch of
> > > > people
> > > > > descend upon the reader-list, probably abusing their office
> > > time and
> > > > > professional resources to spew horror on to the unwary people,
> > > we talk
> > > > about
> > > > > the possibilities of lags, of delays, of moderation and of
> > > down-right
> > > > > banning. However, all these, as we have have often observed,
> > > will lead
> > > > to
> > > > > nowhere. Death, assassination and banning on the interwebz is
> > > > unfortunately,
> > > > > only notional, symbolic. There are no finalities to either of
> > > them and
> > > > the
> > > > > banning or the moderation of one ID would only lead to the Trolls
> > > > spinning
> > > > > of many more IDs which would then come back for their pound
> > > and a half
> > > > of
> > > > > flesh.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hence, IMHO, the best thing to do is to stop FEEDING the
> > > TROLLS. I
> > > > second
> > > > > your request that there are so many other more fruitful ways
> > > of engaging
> > > > > with so many different topics, that it is almost criminal (in the
> > > > non-legal
> > > > > sense of the word) to waste time and resources in trying to
> > > convince the
> > > > > digital equivalent of a black box with six pre-fed scripts and no
> > > > semblance
> > > > > of intelligence - artificial or otherwise. We might, next, as
> > > well start
> > > > > arguing with characters in a novel, parts in a movie,
> > > components of a
> > > > > website. Instead, it is best to just move on.
> > > > >
> > > > > Having said that, I also realise that it is sometimes
> > > difficult to move
> > > > on.
> > > > > More often than not, Trolls specialise in putting their finger
> > > on the
> > > > exact
> > > > > right spot that triggers our buttons and induce instantaneous
> > > > combustion.
> > > > > And hence, there will always be people replying to these
> > > Flames that
> > > > come
> > > > > our way; unfortunately thinking all the time that they are doing
> > > > > fire-fighting, when actually they are just adding fuel to the
> > > Troll> Fire.
> > > > > One technical measure that I can think of - and this takes
> > > away the
> > > > > unenviable job of a list moderator - is to implement a tagging
> > > system in
> > > > > place for all mails that come to the reader list. This at
> > > least, allows
> > > > > people to tag their mails - sometimes the titles are
> > > misleading and
> > > > provide
> > > > > no warning for what is to come - so that when a mail arrives, the
> > > > readers
> > > > > can see the tags and decide for themselves whether they want
> > > to read the
> > > > > mail or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second suggestion I have might be more open for discussion
> > > - Most
> > > > user
> > > > > based free spaces of interaction in the cyberspace have
> > > developed a
> > > > policy
> > > > > of reactive resistance to what they look upon as an abuse of
> > > the space
> > > > or
> > > > > its resources. Under such a policy, you do not ban users from
> > > saying> what
> > > > > they want to say, in whichever way they want to say it, but
> > > instead> allow
> > > > > other users to 'Report Abuse' against a particular user. The
> > > Terms of
> > > > what
> > > > > constitutes Abuse can often be generic but also be very
> > > specific in
> > > > nature
> > > > > and can have a large consultation from the people who have any
> > > stake in
> > > > it.
> > > > > Reporting Abuse eventually needs some sort of a moderator who
> > > either> > resolves the problem or simply marks the charged person
> > > as guilty of
> > > > abuse.
> > > > > Many times, the reason for this marking is also made public. This
> > > > ensures
> > > > > that some IDs which are seen as destructive or Trollish, can
> > > appear> > differently in the conversations, flagged as potentially
> > > abusive in
> > > > nature.
> > > > > This also helps in new readers or readers who have more
> > > invested in the
> > > > > questions, to stay away from the responses that these IDs
> > > might be
> > > > > generating.
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope both these suggestions sound feasible. I would be
> > > available for
> > > > > further communication or planning out of the architectural
> > > integration> of
> > > > > such sort to the Reader's List. I am glad for your
> > > intervention and
> > > > pleased
> > > > > to see that instead of wasting time in responding to the
> > > Trolls, we are
> > > > now
> > > > > looking upon them as symptomatic to a certain kind of problem that
> > > > emerges
> > > > > in 'free speech and free space' and trying to constructively
> > > deal with
> > > > them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Un-lurking after a long time,
> > > > > Nishant
> > > > > On Jan 22, 2008 12:54 PM, Aarti Sethi <aarti.sethi at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:> >
> > > > >
> > > > >> Dear all,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It is becoming more and more difficult to read the writing on the
> > > > >> reader-list. From misogyny, the likes of which I do not
> > > recall ever
> > > > seeing
> > > > >> before, to threats of physical violence against women's
> > > bodies, to
> > > > >> right-wing Hindu vitriol, what is going on? It is actually
> > > now painful
> > > > to
> > > > >> have to see 37 responses on a thread which deserves not even one,
> > > > because
> > > > >> people are valiantly trying to talk rationally, reason with,
> > > respond to
> > > > >> people who should just be told to shut up. I know its very
> > > hard to keep
> > > > >> quite and let things go, especially when we have exemplars like
> > > > chanchal
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> vedavati on this list. But we are all just getting fatigued
> > > now with
> > > > this
> > > > >> relentless barrage of invective and hate that the list is
> > > constantly> >> subjected to.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So now I am asking for solutions. What is to be done?, as
> > > Lenin asked
> > > > many
> > > > >> years ago. What is to be done to save the reader-list? Can we
> > > have a
> > > > >> discussion on this? Clearly responding to them in any
> > > rational fashion
> > > > is
> > > > >> not a solution. And I frankly have no interest or hope that
> > > anything> any
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> us can say will make any difference. This is not about me
> > > refusing to
> > > > have
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> conversation, because the fact is, they do not want to have a
> > > > conversation
> > > > >> at all. And i think that is quite clear from the writing on
> > > the list in
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> past two weeks.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> This is a request to to please stop engaging with them. Lets
> > > ignore> them,
> > > > >> lets not respond to them, lets please just mark all their
> > > mails so they
> > > > go
> > > > >> into our collective trash folders, lets talk about other things,
> > > > anything.
> > > > >> They can then keep talking to each other about the wonderful
> > > Hindu> nation
> > > > >> they will build ad nauseum. But we dont have to listen to
> > > this. And of
> > > > >> course they will claim this as a victory etc etc. How we cant
> > > respond> to
> > > > >> them, how we have nothing to say to their brilliant
> > > argumentation. I
> > > > can
> > > > >> already predict the responses to this mail. But I have no trouble
> > > > saying
> > > > >> that they are right. I am limited by my own linguistic
> > > incapacity to
> > > > >> respond
> > > > >> to writing which is so poisonous.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> And a final qualification about my use of "us" and "them" and any
> > > > >> questions
> > > > >> regarding othering, insularity, assumption of moral
> > > superiority etc
> > > > etc. I
> > > > >> can unabashedly say that I have absolutely no problems
> > > creating this
> > > > >> binary
> > > > >> divide. I have no issues saying that these are people I want
> > > to have
> > > > >> nothing
> > > > >> to do with, as far as I am concerned they are unethical and
> > > violent and
> > > > I
> > > > >> dont see why they should have any purchase on my time at all.
> > > There are
> > > > >> far
> > > > >> more interesting things being said and there are interesting
> > > people> saying
> > > > >> them who I would much rather read, than the reams and reams
> > > of boring
> > > > >> hateful drivel that constantly issue from the likes of chanchal..
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If anyone else has any other ideas please lets hear them. And
> > > if anyone
> > > > >> has
> > > > >> forgotten how to make filters so you can trash the trash,
> > > here is a
> > > > link
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> Vivek's very instructive mail on the matter:
> > > > >> http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/2007-
> > > November/011005.html> >>
> > > > >> best
> > > > >> Aarti
> > > > >> _________________________________________
> > > > >> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > > > >> Critiques & Collaborations
> > > > >> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> > > > >> subscribe in the subject header.
> > > > >> To unsubscribe:
> > > https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > > > >> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________
> > > > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > > > Critiques & Collaborations
> > > > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> > > > subscribe in the subject header.
> > > > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > > > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nishant Shah
> > > Ph.D. Student, CSCS, Bangalore.
> > > Project Manager, COMAT, Bangalore.
> > > # 0-9740074884
> > > _________________________________________
> > > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > > Critiques & Collaborations
> > > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> > > subscribe in the subject header.
> > > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-
> > > list
> > > List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nishant Shah
> Ph.D. Student, CSCS, Bangalore.
> Project Manager, COMAT, Bangalore.
> # 0-9740074884
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>