The rather unfortunate view that’s been ascribed to the gaming community of late is that we’re filled with people who love nothing more than to make other people’s lives hell. As I and many others will attest to this is most certainly not the case in the wider community however like other groups with extremist members it’s all too easy to tar us all with the same brush. Still like those other groups simply putting distance between us and them doesn’t seem to be enough and we’re routinely called upon to fix the issue. The problem, as I see it, is that we really have no mechanisms at our disposal to deal with such toxic members of our community, especially in a world where there are no barriers to communication.
The Internet has always been a conduit for voices that would otherwise not have been heard, for better or for worse. Any mildly public figure has likely received an undue amount of unwanted attention, from the mildly inconvenient to the down right hateful. It used to be considered par for the course with stardom on the Internet as it was guaranteed whatever you were doing would piss someone off on the other side of the globe, triggering a tirade which no other communication medium in the past would support. However recent events are escalating beyond the point of simple words which boggles my mind as to who would think such behaviour would be acceptable. It’s far beyond the point of harmless fun, this is the stuff people should be going to jail for.
We, as the quiet majority of the gaming community, are honestly powerless to stop people from committing acts like this. Within the games we play there are often mechanisms we use to deal with toxic members of the community but in the wider world (which lacks such controls) as a group have no real method to contain, control or punish these kind of people. We can distance ourselves, shame those who misrepresent us and possibly even get companies on our side but if someone wants to do something deplorable, like they have been doing as of late, we’re unable to act until it’s far too late.
TotalBiscuit posed the idea that we, as the moderate majority, should “freeze out” these individuals so that the greater conversation can be maintained without the hate that’s come along with it. Whilst I agree with the idea in principle I fail to see what mechanism we have at our disposal to enact such a course of action. It’s not like I have an answer to this, indeed I’m keen to hear everyone’s ideas on just what we can do in this situation, but if the idea was so simple to execute then we would’ve done it long before anyone had the opportunity to taint the gamer moniker with their extremist bullshit. The titles, hashtags and whatever else has came out of these recent events might not be irrevocably tainted but the solution for cleansing them is still a problem that has yet to reveal itself to us.
I guess what I’m getting at is if we want to have this conversation whilst dealing with the shit that seems to have hung itself onto the cause we, as a community, have to figure out what we need to do to deal with it. Sure, there are dozens of soundbite ideas out there that sound great in principle, but until someone shows me an execution that is even the least bit effective I’m still at loss as to what we can do. I think there are some great conversations here, including those on feminism, journalistic ethics and games as an inclusive medium, however they’re all clouded by hate and generalisations, their arguments lost in a sea of vitriol and bullshit. This isn’t a problem that’s unique to our particular patch either so once we start to find some ideas that work then, hopefully, debates on the Internet can be had without anyone getting a SWAT team showing up at their door.
If you’re old enough to remember a time when mobile phones weren’t common place you also likely remember the time when Nokia was the brand to have, much like Apple is today. I myself owned quite a few of them with my very first phone ever being the (then) ridiculously small Nokia 8210. I soon gravitated towards other, more shiny devices as my disposable income allowed but I did find myself in possession of an N95 because, at the time, it was probably one of the best handsets around for techno-enthusiasts like myself. However it’s hard to deny that they’ve struggled to compete in today’s smartphone market and, unfortunately, their previous domination in the feature phone market has also slipped away from them.
Their saving grace was meant to come from partnering with Microsoft and indeed I attested to as much at the time. Casting my mind back to when I wrote that post I was actually of the mind that Nokia was going to be the driving force for Microsoft however in retrospect it seems the partnership was done in the hopes that both of their flagging attempts in the smartphone market could be combined into one, potentially viable, product. Whilst I’ve praised the design and quality of Windows Phone based Nokias in the past it’s clear that the amalgamation of 2 small players hasn’t resulted in a viable strategy to accumulate a decent amount of market share.
You can then imagine my surprise when Microsoft up and bought Nokia’s Devices and Services business as it doesn’t appear to be a great move for them.
So Nokia as a company isn’t going anywhere as they still retain control of a couple key businesses (Solutions and Networks, HERE/Navteq and Advanced Technologies which I’ll talk about in a bit) however they’re not going to be making phones anymore as that entire capability has been transferred to Microsoft. That’s got a decent amount of value in itself, mostly in the manufacturing and supply chains, and Microsoft’s numbers will swell by 32,000 when the deal is finished. However whether that’s going to result in any large benefits for Microsoft is debateable as they arguably got most of this in their 2011 strategic partnership just that they can now do all the same without the Nokia branding on the final product.
If this type of deal is sounding familiar then you’re probably remembering the nearly identical acquisition that Google made in Motorola back in 2011. Google’s reasons and subsequent use of the company were quite different however and, strangely enough, they have yet to use them to make one of Nexus phones. Probably the biggest difference, and this is key to why this deal is great for Nokia and terrible for Microsoft, is the fact that Google got all of Motorola’s patents, Microsoft hasn’t got squat.
As part of the merger a new section is being created in Nokia called Advanced Technologies which, as far as I can tell, is going to be the repository for all of Nokia’s technology patents. Microsoft has been granted a 10 year license to all of these, and when that’s expired they’ll get a perpetual one, however Nokia gets to keep ownership of all of them and the license they gave Microsoft is non-exclusive. So since Nokia is really no longer a phone company they’re now free to start litigating against anyone they choose without much fear of counter-suits harming any of their products. Indeed they’ve stated that the patent suits will likely continue post acquisition signalling that Nokia is likely going to look a lot more like a patent troll than a technology company in the near future.
Meanwhile Microsoft has been left with a flagging handset business, one that’s failed to reach the kind of growth that would be required to make it sustainable long term. Now there’s something to be said about Microsoft being able to release Lumia branded handsets (they get the branding in this deal) but honestly their other forays into the consumer electronics space haven’t gone so well so I’m not sure what they’re going to accomplish here. They’ve already got the capability and distribution channels to get products out there (go into any PC store and you’ll find Microsoft branded peripherals there, guaranteed) so whilst it might be nice to get Nokia’s version of that all built and ready I’m sure they could have built one themselves for a similar amount of cash. Of course the Lumia tablet might be able to change consumer’s minds on that one but most of the user complaints around Windows RT weren’t about the hardware (as evidenced in my review).
In all honesty I have no idea why Microsoft would think this would be a good move, let alone a move that would let them do anything more than they’re currently doing. If they had acquired Nokia’s vast portfolio of patents in the process I’d be singing a different tune as Microsoft has shown how good they are in wringing license fees out of people (so much so that the revenue they get from Android licensing exceeds that of their Windows Phone division) . However that hasn’t happened and instead we’ve got Nokia lining up to become a patent troll of epic proportions and Microsoft left $7 billion patent licensing deal that comes with its own failing handset business. I’m not alone in this sentiment either as Microsoft’s shares dropped 5% on this announcement which isn’t great news for this deal.
I really want to know where they’re going with this because I can’t for the life of me figure it out.
I try to keep resemblance of what could be likened to journalistic integrity on this blog. I usually only write about things that I believe I have something worthy to say on the topic and I think it shows when I’ve forced out a post just to satisfy my obsessive-compulsive side. Still the temptation is always there to take the latest hot headline in one of my areas of interest and just parrot the popular sentiment as it’s an almost guaranteed way to drive people to this site. Sometimes I’m lucky enough that these two worlds collide and I get to write about something I like that brings people to my blog. One example of this was my reaction to the iPad which, whilst I knew was going to be all over the press, was an honest reaction to the product’s announcement and saw quite a few people coming here to get whatever details they could on Apple’s latest toy.
In the professional blogging world things aren’t quite so freeform.
You see, despite efforts to the contrary, the best way to make money off your online content is advertising. Depending on who you’re dealing with these can be cost per thousand impressions (CPM), cost per click (CPC) or some other variety. No matter what kind of advertising you end up slathering all over your content the amount you make will still be directly proportional to the number of users that you receive on your site. The best ways to do this usually involve breaking a story (although that doesn’t last that long in our Internet world), writing on the topic de’jeur or playing on people’s loyalties by taking a controversial stance on a subject. Take a look at any blogging site and you’ll see a combination of all of these, usually right there on the front page. All of this is done in aid of driving users and their respective advertising revenue to the site.
As always this post was inspired by an example of such behaviour that I saw on the Internet. Currently one of the hot topics amongst the tech crowd is the issue of the iPhone 4’s antenna which can be shorted out if held in a certain way. I’ve steered clear of the topic mostly because I don’t have anything useful to say on the matter and it’s already been beaten to death in the headlines over the past couple weeks. To give you an idea of just how absurd this whole situation is getting take a gander at this post over at TechCrunch:
But the thing is, that trust that my mom gives to Consumer Reports was hard earned over decades of obsessive use. She trusts Consumer Reports. And if I read it I might trust it too. If they rated stuff on shininess I’d definitely subscribe. Or if they rated robots.
But suddenly Consumer Reports is crazy for the link bait. This iPhone 4 antenna problemhas them going absolutely batshit crazy, and nearly every day they’re firing off a new set of recommendations, or demands, that conflict with the old recommendations and demands.
Ironically¹ Arrington is also guilty of the same things that he criticises Consumer Reports of doing. The post is a classic traffic driver attempt: he’s taken a rather controversial stance on something (no one else has criticized Consumer Reports to my knowledge), he’s talking about one of the hottest topics today and for what it’s worth he’s breaking the story. The post is just aching for Consumer Reports to post a response back to his claims and should they actually do that he’s got another in to write yet another trolltastic article.
For me since my blog is primarily personal and nets me zero in the ways of revenue I don’t usually have any desire to write those kinds of articles. That’s not to say I haven’t, in fact I’ve done quite a few of them. However I never really felt that good about them afterwards and talking it over with my fellow bloggers they agreed they weren’t really of the standard they’d come to expect from me. I am human however so there are times when my stance on something will go against the grain of what’s currently socially acceptable but those posts will (hopefully) contain reasoned, logically constructed arguments so at least if you don’t agree with me you understand how I came to my conclusions.
You could write this whole tirade off as someone who’s just languishing in the dark recesses of the Internet casting an evil eye to anyone who’s got a whiff of success. The Australian blood that runs through me will always want to cut the tall poppies down but realistically it all comes back to my desire to give a little something to those who read my writings. Whilst I know that not everyone cares about why people write things for all to see I feel that knowing someone’s motivations helps me greatly in understanding their content and, should they attempt to convince me of their viewpoint, acknowledge any biases they have lest I take them on as my own.
¹It gets even more ironic if you consider that this post could be construed as falling prey to the same ideas I’m criticising. I knew that when writing this, just so you know 😉
I’m not usually a person to back down in an argument. If I think I’m right about something I’ll usually fight tooth and nail until I’m unequivocally proven to be wrong, at which point I’ll concede. I think this is my folly when it comes to debating arguing with people on the Internet, since the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory dictates that the people on the other end of the connection are more than likely not trying to inspire an intellectual debate. They’re probably just fishing for a reaction from someone in front of their audience of choice.
This behaviour is commonly referred to as trolling and is most present in online mediums. Take away the innate sense of identity from someone and it appears that a lot of them take it upon themselves to incite emotional reactions in people rather than attempt intellectual debate. Whilst I can consider the possibility that some trolls may just be people purporting an controversial viewpoint and thus receive the label incorrectly there is a distinct difference in behaviour between the two. Your typical troll will use such devices as ad hominem attacks which serve nothing for the argument but will invoke an emotional reaction.
With the population at large becoming more aware of these types of individuals the typical troll is usually spotted and shut out long before they have a chance to cause any damage. Like any organism who is trying to survive they have then evolved into what I referred to as Intellectual Trolls. Unlike their ancestors they will engage in the discussion or debate and instead of going for an immediate reaction they will attempt to get others frustrated with them by using deliberately ambiguous arguments and other oratory devices which would make them out to be the one who is being trolled. It’s these kinds of trolls I have a lot of problems with, since I don’t stop arguing until they’ve come around to my point of view.
There’s also a strange kind of situation where some people become accidental trolls. I usually see this happen when someone has a strong point of view that hits on a nerve of someone on the other side of the argument. A great example of this was on the weekend when I was discussing Australian taxation with one of my friends. In essence I agreed with what he was saying but he used one example (contractors vs permanent employees in the public service) which hit on one of my bug bears (people thinking contractors have it much better than permanent employees). It trigger a primarily emotional response from me and distracted from the argument completely, in essence he trolled without even thinking about it. To be honest though the fault lies completely with me, but it’s interesting to see how someone could accidentally fall under the troll label.
For the most part though the online communities that I frequent are troll free and the only time I get caught out is when I’m actually in the wrong. Probably the biggest walls I face is when I end up against the groupthink of the discussion or community and I end up getting shouted down by several other parties. It’s at times like this I just leave it be as there’s not usually a lot of benefit in when they don’t want to listen. It’s a little hard to give an opposing viewpoint when they figuratively have their fingers in their ears.
I’m getting better at identifying these trolls and leaving them be once I’ve said my peace but they still manage to get my guard up at one time or another. Maybe I just need stop defending my viewpoints so fervently, I can be a little stubborn sometimes 🙂