On November 11 of 2014, actor Will Wheaton, whom you might know as the voice of Aqualad from the 2002-2006 Teen Titans cartoon and as a recurring self parody on the Big Bang Theory, has recently written an article on the Washington Post, titled "Anonymous Trolls are destroying online gaming. Here's how to stop them." As I am a firm believer in freedom of speech, the respectful exchange of ideas, and the individual freedom to believe what we wish, I offer my own rebuttal to his work. His original words will be left uncensored (save for one video that I shall not link, I'll explain why below) and will be written in bold, while my words will be written beneath his, unboldened. As the purpose of this entry is to educate and criticize, it is protected by Copyright law. His original work can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/11/anonymous-trolls-are-destroying-online-games-heres-how-to-stop-them/?tid=sm_fb
“On the internet,” says the iconic New Yorker cartoon, “nobody knows you’re a dog.” It’s a joke, but it’s also a problem. More venom than ever before is flowing from behind the cloak of anonymity, where people remain entirely unaccountable for their words and deeds. Recently, random men used the anonymity of a huge city like New York to harass actor Shoshana Roberts while she walked the streets of Manhattan. Unnamed users of Ask.fm bullied a British 18-year-old until she killed herself last year. This is especially true inside the gaming community, where female developers like Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu were forced from their homes by credible, anonymous threats. Feminist video game critic Anita Sarkeesian has canceled public speaking engagements thanks to anonymous threats of violence. And activists from #GamerGate are hiding behind user IDs to terrorize women like my friend Felicia Day.
Gotta hand it to Wheaton, he does not waste time getting to his point. But of course, likewise he wastes no time firing off easily refutable "facts" to prove his point. The first thing he does is link to the video from Hollaback which purports to show "street harassment". Problem is, a good look at the video shows that, while it CAN be a bit annoying, the "street harassment" Shoshana Roberts received was often little more than a few instances of either a- Men being overly polite to a woman, b- Men asking for a little attention, or c- Simple good mornings and how are you's. Now, I am not saying that there WASN'T any true harassment (if a guy or a girl were following me for five minutes, I'd be nervous too, after all), but I AM saying that the video itself is problematic because it tried sending out a message that, frankly, fell on its face. And also, ten hours reduced to a 2 minute video? What happened on the other 9 hours and 58 minutes?
We also see Wheaton bring up the suicide of Hannah Smith, a girl who allegedly killed herself after she had been bullied online on a website called ask.fm. I for one greatly dislike using someone else's death as a platform for politicization, ESPECIALLY if the deceased was just a child (Wheaton incorrectly states she was 18. Had he done his research, he would have found out she was, in fact, fourteen.) Seeing Wheaton use a child's suicide to further his point, especially knowing that he had no need to do so as it had TOO LITTLE to do with his main point, is beyond infuriating to me. I have words for Wheaton, but I'll refrain from using them until AFTER I am done with my rebuttal. For more info on her death, I provide a link: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-23584769
Wheaton brings up the harassment that the three Literally Who's (Anita, Zoe, and Brianna) are facing. Wheaton fails to mention that the reason Anita Sarkeesian canceled her presentation was because the police would not use metal detectors to scan for handguns, even though security would have searched the area with a fine toothed comb for any bombs or heavy firearms. Am I saying Anita Sarkeesian did not have a right to cancel the event for fear of her own safety? NO. I am NOT saying that at all, in fact I say she had every right to cancel the event not just for her own safety, but for the safety of the audience as well. But here, Wheaton (as Sarkeesian herself did as well) is implicitly saying that the actions of one lunatic are reflective of a whole group of people. This is the central problem of Wheaton's work, but I'm getting way ahead of myself.
Anonymity, in some cases a key civil liberty, also enables society’s worst actors. The loudest, most obnoxious, most toxic voices are able to drown out the rest of us—a spectacle that has nearly pushed me to quit the video-game world entirely in recent months. I don’t need to hear about the sexual conquest of my mother from a random 12-year-old on Xbox Live ever again.
How is anonymity a civil liberty in "some" cases? Care to expand on that idea, Wheaton? Are there cases in which an individual deserves to get their name, address, and personal information released to the world? Let me guess: when a rapist get caught.
Here Wheaton gives us, unintentionally, the biggest weakness of his argument: without anonymity, our identities become exposed. Ah, but let's hold on to that idea until later, shall we?
But here’s the thing: that random 12-year-old I seem to encounter so often? He probably isn’t 12. According to the ERSB, the average age of a video gamer is 34. That 34-year-old is certainly old enough to know better, but he probably came of age in an era when trolling was not just acceptable but encouraged by a generation of players who rarely, if ever, had to see the actual people they were playing with. No wonder he feels enabled by digital anonymity. It means he never has to face the consequences of his actions, or acknowledge that there is a human being on the other side of the screen.
And here we see the first big logical fallacy that Wheaton employs: because the average of the population is X, then the average of any given sample of the population shall be X too. I'm taking statistics this semester, and let me tell you, that's not how it work. Just because the average gamer is a 34 year old, doesn't mean the average troll is 34 years old. The simple truth is we don't know what percentage troll gamers make of the total gamer population. Because of this, while there IS indeed a strong chance that troll is, in fact, a 34 year old man or woman, it is just as likely to be a 12 year old boy or a 9 year old girl who's talking big to feel big. And of course, how fascinating that Wheaton is explicitly masculinizing the troll. What if it was a woman telling you your mom was a slut, eh Wheaton? Or are you implying women don't harass people online?
It’s time to break this cycle—and to teach gamers that they can compete without being competitive, that they can win and lose without spewing racist, misogynist, homophobic bile at their fellow gamers. But doing so requires casting off the cloak of anonymity.
Oh boy, here we go. "In order to be safe, we must give up our liberties." That line of thinking is what allowed the NSA to tap into our phone lines, read our emails, and access our private information. In the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who'd surrender essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Do you know why doxxing is illegal? Because having our private information leaked online opens us up to several dangers, including a little thing called STALKERS. You know, dangerous people that have no qualms about invading your personal space? Stalkers are dangerous people, Mr Wheaton, and you should know. We are anonymous online BECAUSE our information has never before been so easy to find. All I need is a ten minute google search and bam, I can find your facebook, your home address, your phone number, anything.
Did you know Milo Yiannoupolous was doxxed? Did you know someone sent him a knife in the mail? Imagine what someone a bit more unhinged could do with the simple information that is someone's home address. If the idea doesn't outright frighten you, Mr Wheaton, then I don't know what will.
Now imagine that Felicia Day, YOUR FRIEND, would not have been able to hide who she was because, thanks to YOUR idea, she'd have to give up her identity online. She'd never be able to play World of Warcraft! She'd never be able to play any online game, ever again, because she'd be pestered continuously not by trolls but by well meaning fans! In a bid to protect her right to play games without worrying about harassment, you accidentally took it away instead.
When I started playing video games, we were in arcades, and we had to win and lose with grace, or we’d get our butts beaten (literally) by other players. Or, worse, we’d be kicked out! When we played games next to each other on the couch, we could trash talk and razz each other, but we were still in the same room together, and our behavior out of game was even more important than the way we behaved in the game. Playing games with real, live humans prevented any of the poisonous behavior proliferating online today.
That, ultimately, is the cure for what ails us. It’s nearly impossible to enforce actual consequences in video games at the moment, but at a table, sitting face-to-face across a tabletop game, or even playing at a LAN party, sportsmanship matters. We can challenge ourselves and our opponents in nearly every world in nearly every type of game, and because we’re literally inches from each other, the way we react to victory and defeat actually matters.
By that logic, why not get rid of online gaming altogether? No more X-Box Live, no more MOBA's, no more MMORPG's, no more nothing!
Also, personal anecdotes do not evidence make, Mr Wheaton. But let's pretend it does for a second, OK? As someone who has also played with people in arcades and game rooms, let me tell you: it sucks to look at those smug assholes every time they beat you. It sucks to hear someone say "you lost the minute you picked up that controller." My point is: just because it's face to face gaming doesn't immediately turn it into this pleasant, sugar and rainbows experience for all. Sometimes, being face to face just keeps the asshole from being as much of an asshole as he or she could be, but not entirely.
I’ve seen players fight for every point in tournaments, then graciously congratulate each other, regardless of who won. I’ve sat down with complete strangers — just like the random person I’d likely encounter online — and had an absolutely wonderful time being obliterated by them, because not only were they more skilled than I was, they were also nice and decent human beings. My TV show “Tabletop,” which debuts its third season this week, is full of warm interactions like those:
Yeah? We'll I've seen people get kicked out of arcades for throwing tantrums at a loss. I've seen people rage quit a co-op game just because they missed a kill, or got killed first. I've sat down with people, complete strangers, that taunted people over their loss. What's your point, Mr Wheaton? Because, again, personal anecdotes do not count as evidence.
At this point, Will Wheaton included a video of his online series. I won't be sharing that video because that'd be free publicity, and if I give publicity to anything, it's for stuff I like, OK? Also, I'd criticize his shameless self promotion, but hey, it's his show, let him advertise it. I would have crossed out the name of his show, but I promised his words would be UNcensored.
To be sure, anonymity online has it uses and is very important. Governments hoover up people’s telephone and e-mail records without oversight, and companies track astonishingly granular personal information. If we want dissent in places where it would otherwise be quashed, whistleblowers to come forward, investigative journalism, and people who can feel like their authentic selves, they need tools like the Tor browser and GnuPGP to let them speak their minds with impunity. In the age of total-information awareness, citizens need certain protections.
I wish Wheaton had not included this paragraph, I really do, because it just weakens his stance so badly. You'll see why in the next paragraph...
But in the gaming community, those protections aren’t necessary, and they aren’t helping. Anonymous trolls have made the gaming community toxic — especially for women — and upended the industry at a time when the games we play are finally being recognized as the incredible works of art that they can be. While I don’t believe bad actors represent gaming culture’s mainstream, I feel sure they wouldn’t issue rape and death threats, or harass other gamers, if they would be held accountable for their actions.
My jaw dropped when I read this. I could not believe that Wheaton would be so ignorant as to say that anonymity is not necessary in online gaming, when the exact opposite is true. Anyone at any age can play online. I've seen ten year old children play many MOBA's. Now imagine that their identities were out in the open. Let's say Timmy Turner of Dimmsdale, California, were playing League of Legends. Because he has no right to anonymity, what's to keep some pedophile with no previous criminal record look him up online, hop on the bus, and help himself to some 10 year old buns, all because he decided to just play a fun game of League in the afternoon and was queued up with lil' Timmy?
Online anonymity would have served as that wall that would have kept his identity safe! THAT'S WHY WE TELL OUR KIDS TO NEVER DISCLOSE WHO THEY ARE ONLINE! THAT'S WHY WE TELL PARENTS TO MONITOR THEIR CHILDREN'S ONLINE ACTIVITY! THAT'S WHY WE DISCOURAGE YOUNG KIDS FROM USING THE INTERNET WITHOUT ADULT SUPERVISION! Because we know for a fact that there are assholes out there who have no qualms about hurting others!
And you know what, Wheaton? You seem perfectly willing to take away EVERYONE'S right to anonymity just for the sake of punishing a handful of assholes. You claim you don't think bad actors represent gamin culture's mainstream, but the fact is you do. You judge the lot of us because of the actions of a few bad apples. And don't even think about saying "no I'm not", because if you weren't, you wouldn't be suggesting we give up our anonymity. You are like a king that's willing to punish the just for the works of a sinner. This isn't fair, Wheaton.
I love tabletop and video games, which should be open and inclusive to everyone. It’s time for the silent majority of gamers to stand up and protect the community we love. Don’t let it go to the dogs.
Our anonymity is the KEY to our inclusive culture, Mr Wheaton. Have you ever wondered why we have the saying "there are no girls on the Internet?" It isn't because of misogyny, but because our anonymity takes away anything that can identify us, except for our actions. When we're all anonymous, we are all truly equal. In gaming, gender doesn't matter, only skill.
Are there bad apples out there? Hell yeah, just like there's bad apples everywhere. And we try, Mr Wheaton, we really try to make gaming a good space for everyone. But that's just not possible, because there can never be an absolutely safe space. And there can never be an absolutely safe space because doing so requires an inhuman amount of effort. We'd need a boat load of psychics that can see into the future and stop harassment before it starts in order to provide the safe space you and your fellow sofa feminists dream of! But all we can do is report harassment, block harassers, and go on with our lives. Is it perfect? No. Does it always work? No. But it's the best we've got.
Mr Wheaton, you HAD a great position to make a call for more empathy, for tolerance, for kindness. Freedom is tamed with responsibility, with knowledge and wisdom, and you HAD the opportunity to talk to gamers the world over on how we need to be less assholes and more kinder, gentler folk. You could have used your voice to make a call for civility on both sides of the argument, because whether you like it or not, the people YOU have sided with are just as big a bunch of bullies as you think gamers are. But you squandered that chance in order to condemn a community you yourself admit you wish to leave, if you were ever a part of it at all.
Worst part is you had a few good points here and there. Yes, harassment is terrible. Yes, issuing death threats to someone is inexcusable and should be punished. But by taking EVERYONE'S liberty away, are you really doing more good than harm? You yourself laid out the NSA example, so THAT should have answered our question!
The simple fact is that you're wrong, Mr Wheaton. You're dead wrong in assuming that taking away our anonymity would stop trolling and harassment, because such things are a part of the nether of humanity. You might think you're helping by making this suggestion, but all you're doing is wiping the foam off the rabid dog's mouth.
No comments:
Post a Comment