Online abuse/trolling

learn_more

I have seen that in the UK there have been proposed new laws to tackle so called 'online abuse'.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37601431.

I'm thinking specifically about 'anonymous abuse'. Posting hateful remarks and death threats etc, to a specific known person.

I think that opening up a personal twitter page or whatever to anyone in the world to follow and comment on is just asking for trouble. How can anyone expect to receive only 'lovely' comments and expect nasty comments to stay away, when you invite the whole world to comment. That strikes me as being extraordinarily naive.

I think that time and money spend on tracking down people who post abusive comments is a complete waste of time and public money. Rather I think the law want's further powers to 'track' everyone's online activities ostensibly to track 'online abusers' but actually to have further powers to monitor ALL of our online activities, which is an invasion of privacy.

I would suggest anyone who receives abusive comments and are hurt by it, just delete you account, and don't leave yourself open to it anymore. It's not like a twitter page is an essential part of life, or a right.

Arsemageddon

......and then there's fraping, that's when people are raped on Facebook.

It has to stop.

Your Face

Gimp.

Arcade_Tryer

Je Suis Skankhunt42.

Annasopra

Why should people who are abused be forced off the internet?

Arcade_Tryer

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why should people who are abused be forced off the internet?

Why would anyone be forced off the internet?

It's a choice whether to leave or stay. Like Brexit. Kind of.

JRant

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why should people who are abused be forced off the internet?

That's not what the OP is saying at all.

While it is unfair on people who receive this type of treatment there is an element of truth to it and it's one I will be drilling into my own kids when they're old enough. Just delete the account and start over a fresh.

Graham

JRant wrote: »

That's not what the OP is saying at all.

OP appears to be suggesting you should have a reasonable expectation of death threats if you use social media.

JRant

Graham wrote: »

OP appears to be suggesting you should have a reasonable expectation of death threats if you use social media.

I don't read it like that at all. They are just advocating using common sense. Delete the account and move on.

Graham

JRant wrote: »

I don't read it like that at all. They are just advocating using common sense. Delete the account and move on.

Many people don't hide behind nicknames when using social media in either a personal or professional capacity.

If someone has made threats against the account owner and/or their family then it's not likely to make them feel much safer by hiding their social media presence.

Atlantic Dawn

If you put any personal data up online be prepared for those who think your a gob****e as well as those who think your gods gift, live by these rules and you will be grand.

Annasopra

JRant wrote: »

I don't read it like that at all.

But that is pretty much what the op said:

Death threats are reasonable and shouldnt be challenged. And if someone gets death threats they should leave the internet.

Hande hoche!

Imagine there will be one or two amusing stories resulting from it, if implemented. People sending death treats to themselves and the likes.

JRant

Graham wrote: »

Many people don't hide behind nicknames when using social media in either a personal or professional capacity.

If someone has made threats against the account owner and/or their family then it's not likely to make them feel much safer by hiding their social media presence.

Outside of Facebook I would see mostly made up handles on social media accounts. It's also not a very good idea to have all your personal information out there for any gobshïte to see.

If someone receives a genuine death threat then report that account to the police and close down your own one.
Why would you continue to put yourself out there if you were genuinely worried about your safety?

JRant

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But that is pretty much what the op said:

Death threats are reasonable and shouldnt be challenged. And if someone gets death threats they should leave the internet.

It's clearly not, they are just suggesting closing down a Twitter account if that happens and not to post personal information online.

Nowhere do they say to leave the internet.

learn_more

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But that is pretty much what the op said:

Death threats are reasonable and shouldnt be challenged. And if someone gets death threats they should leave the internet.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying : )

If your going to be silly then so will I.

learn_more

To re-iterate my main point. If you say to the world 'here I am, say something to me'...and to expect that no one in the whole world would not say something offensive to you , is incredibly naive. What is even more naive is to take those comments seriously.

A woman will get sexist comments. A gay with get homophobic comments. An America will get Anti-America comments. An African will get ....and so on. It's ridiculous to think that would not happen. It' like complaining to the police that you've been robbed when you never bother to lock your front door in the first place.

Graham

learn_more wrote: »

To re-iterate my main point. If you say to the world 'here I am, say something to me'...and to expect that no one in the whole would would not say something offensive to you , is incredibly naive.

Your opening post specifically mentioned death threats, it's only now you're rowing back to suggest general unpleasant comments.

If the point you're trying to make is people using open social media shouldn't be overly sensitive, I'd agree.

When people start to receive death threats, threats of actual harm to themselves and/or their families then that's crossing a line that should be followed up.

The_Valeyard

We have already lost Heidi Turner and Eric Cartman. How many more!!!

tomwaterford

learn_more wrote: »

To re-iterate my main point. If you say to the world 'here I am, say something to me'...and to expect that no one in the whole world would not say something offensive to you , is incredibly naive. What is even more naive is to take those comments seriously.

A woman will get sexist comments. A gay with get homophobic comments. An America will get Anti-America comments. An African will get ....and so on. It's ridiculous to think that would not happen. It' like complaining to the police that you've been robbed when you never bother to lock your front door in the first place.

Its no way right though. ....as had been said those saying such negative things are just projecting their own unhappiness in life into others....

How is it right to accept such comments because someone else fcuked up there life to an extent they've to go online abusing others???

Ferrari3600

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But that is pretty much what the op said:

Death threats are reasonable and shouldnt be challenged. And if someone gets death threats they should leave the internet.

The OP has a valid argument, though he expresses it in a cack handed manner.

Do you truly and genuine think the UK laws are a model to be followed?

Police employed to watch Twitter to see if anyone says bad stuff? (And we're all paying for this, remember. It's our money, ultimately.)

And a campaign now to make the regulations even stricter?

The reality is that there are already regulations in place. Death threats, rape threats, etc on social media are already a criminal offence, and people have been prosecuted. The law is sufficient. More than sufficient, I'd argue, at least in some respects.

Son Of A Vidic

Arsemageddon wrote: »

......and then there's fraping, that's when people are raped on Facebook.

It has to stop.

With a username like that, I really can't think of a more appropriate poster to make that point.

Holograph

Sometimes there are things you cannot fight - ideally people should not be harassed online of course but as long as it is happening (and it is not easy to police) people should close their account/change their name etc to protect themselves if it really gets to them. And also, obviously not stuff as extreme and horrible as death threats, but for the much milder stuff at the other end of the spectrum, it is worth trying to ignore/develop a thicker skin and rising above it.

learn_more

Graham wrote: »

Your opening post specifically mentioned death threats, it's only now you're rowing back to suggest general unpleasant comments.

If the point you're trying to make is people using open social media shouldn't be overly sensitive, I'd agree.

When people start to receive death threats, threats of actual harm to themselves and/or their families then that's crossing a line that should be followed up.

No I am not rowing back at all. I include death threats and any other threats you care to imagine. I only used death threats as an example.

pragmatic1

I cannot fathom how anyone would get upset by what some anonymous nobody on the internet says. If people are that thin skinned, how do they cope in the real world.

I'm completely opposed to any attack on internet freedom and everyone should be. The internet has become a great leveller in the world and I'd say that fact worries certain people in power.

Anesthetize

Abuse and trolling are not the same thing. Trolling can be an art form when done properly.

Winterlong

Anesthetize wrote: »

Abuse and trolling are not the same thing. Trolling can be an art form when done properly.

And trolling is more fun too.

Annasopra

learn_more wrote: »

No I am not rowing back at all. I include death threats and any other threats you care to imagine. I only used death threats as an example.

So you are saying death threats are acceptable then

Anesthetize

Winterlong wrote: »

And trolling is more fun too.

Google Ken M.

tritium

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why should people who are abused be forced off the internet?

Je suis Thunderf00t?

Je suis the Fine Young Capitalists?

There have been prosecution in the UK for online abuse, in one of the first cases to go to court, it turned out the perpetrators were a mentally ill woman who took selfies with well known landmarks near the court as if she was a on a day out, and a man who has issues with woman and appeared to be motivated by getting likes for his opinions.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/twitter-trolls-isabella-sorley-and-john-nimmo-jailed-for-abusing-feminist-campaigner-caroline-criado-9083829.html


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11627180/Five-internet-trolls-a-day-convicted-in-UK-as-figures-show-ten-fold-increase.html

learn_more

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

So you are saying death threats are acceptable then

In an internet 'twitter like' context ....yes they are. Is it morally right, no , but should we send the cops after them...no.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

darkpagandeath

andekwarhola

Criminalizing 'hate speech' is a step too far. As pointed out, it's often used to stamp out opinions you don't like. Let people say what they want in a general sense.

Same with trolling in the classic sense.

I do think people that specifically target or dox individuals (in the personal bullying sense) should face some kind of music though.

Jesus.

OP is 100% correct. Generation Snowflake can't hack the sh1t they get on Facebook. Then don't go on it. Simples.

learn_more

mariaalice wrote: »

There have been prosecution in the UK for online abuse, in one of the first cases to go to court, it turned out the perpetrators were a mentally ill woman who took selfies with well known landmarks near the court as if she was a on a day out, and a man who has issues with woman and appeared to be motivated by getting likes for his opinions.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/twitter-trolls-isabella-sorley-and-john-nimmo-jailed-for-abusing-feminist-campaigner-caroline-criado-9083829.html


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11627180/Five-internet-trolls-a-day-convicted-in-UK-as-figures-show-ten-fold-increase.html

This reminds me of the terrible case from 2014 where a 'twitter troll' was outted on Sky News. Sky News decided to turn up on her doorstep and question her. It must have been a slow news day so they presented the story as the top news story of the day.

She made some abusive comments to the Mc Canns, the very story that has has been kept alive for much longer that it should by... Sky News.

She committed suicide the next day after having her face plastered all over the TV. She was just some nobody with a some mental issues.

I think this tragic case is a prime example of the consequences of taking comments on the internet too seriously.

If she wasn't tracked down by the police, she'd still be alive today, or at least wouldn't have died in such tragic circumstances.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11144435/Madeleine-McCann-Twitter-troll-Brenda-Leyland-death-Trolling-is-never-a-victimless-crime.html

Graham

learn_more wrote: »

If she wasn't tracked down by the police, she'd still be alive today, or at least wouldn't have died in such tragic circumstances.

If she'd been tracked down at the start of the 4 year campaign of abuse maybe things wouldn't have got so out of hand that she felt the only way out was to end her life.

iLikeWaffles

Better restraints and moderation on YouTube comments for children! Some of those comments are mindlessly hateful for directing your anguish as your adolescent mind wanders to prey on your next victim. That's where it begins folks. That is totally unchecked thanks to Google or the account holder or device admin. There are loads of videos on YouTube actually making a laugh out of peoples personalities and some people don't realise how damaging a sly remark can be for another person or just don't give a sh1t. Sometimes the people on the end of the comment don't understand why its being directed towards them and its all down to educating others how to handle it.

If there was moderation on YouTube first off it would nip a good chunk of that abusive and bullying behaviour on the bud. As for other sites there should be consequences for your actions in this case what and how you communicate. You can't go into a pub for example and start abusing the first person you see just minding there own business sitting at the end of a pint you'd get a punch in the face most likely why should you be able to do it on the internet.

As for trolling. Just what do people constitute trolling as because there seems to be a fine line between it and trying to be funny or a smart arse that some people just don't understand or get so they just call it trolling. Back at the start of the interwebs trolling was a brand new thing but it has evolved with the times now and needs to be redefined imo.

There is a site called twitch. It is a live streaming service for people playing video games (and getting paid to do so by the viewers) it has a simple yet effective solution to tell people that what you have just said in the chat box should not be taking seriously. It is basically a picture of one of the founders of the site who's username is kappa. I think every forum should employ this simple solution for what your typed message just stated is only meant to be fun and should not be taking seriously it would solve a lot of problems on boards.ie for one. I thought boards uses the pacman smiley for that though.

Rant over :pac::pac:

lawlolawl

Just pretend I posted that Tyler The Creator twitter quote about cyberbulling because I don't know how to embed twitter links on here.

The Legend Of Kira

learn_more wrote: »

I have seen that in the UK there have been proposed new laws to tackle so called 'online abuse'.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37601431.

I'm thinking specifically about 'anonymous abuse'. Posting hateful remarks and death threats etc, to a specific known person.

I think that opening up a personal twitter page or whatever to anyone in the world to follow and comment on is just asking for trouble. How can anyone expect to receive only 'lovely' comments and expect nasty comments to stay away, when you invite the whole world to comment. That strikes me as being extraordinarily naive.

I think that time and money spend on tracking down people who post abusive comments is a complete waste of time and public money. Rather I think the law want's further powers to 'track' everyone's online activities ostensibly to track 'online abusers' but actually to have further powers to monitor ALL of our online activities, which is an invasion of privacy.

I would suggest anyone who receives abusive comments and are hurt by it, just delete you account, and don't leave yourself open to it anymore. It's not like a twitter page is an essential part of life, or a right.

People who make death threats to someone else online should of course be investigated by the authorities , taking death threats out of the equation and this tackle " Online abuse " or " Online trolling " what exactly is trolling ? as what one person defines as trolling other people will see as reasonable comment/ question , for example John Lyons of ( People Before Profit ) posted on social media two months ago how he was disappointed a public meeting he was due to speak at on the 8th amendment at a Gaa club got canceled & how it was " A disgraceful attack on free speech " in his very words , I put up a comment in reply to counter argue that his fellow party members disrupted a public meeting by another political party last year ( Identity Ireland ) & that its Ironic of him to talk about free speech when his party disrupt other political meetings , some people thought I had a fair point made while some ( People Before Profit ) supporters tried to dismiss me as a troll without counter arguing my points made in that post .

On the point of online abuse etc, both Roisin Ingle + Tara Flynn have received unpleasant comments on twitter since they both admitted to having abortions in the past , but with unpleasant comments you can also block and Ignore the person - I don,t think there needs to be police investigations into comments people make online as long as the line doesn,t cross into death threats or defamation/ libel .

But it is not as simple as individuals are making out and it is to do with the difference between pandering and opinion. Everyone is entitled to express their opinion even in an extremely vulgar way, but they are not entitled to threaten anyone even if the chances of carrying it out are remote.

intheclouds

learn_more wrote: »

This reminds me of the terrible case from 2014 where a 'twitter troll' was outted on Sky News. Sky News decided to turn up on her doorstep and question her. It must have been a slow news day so they presented the story as the top news story of the day.

She made some abusive comments to the Mc Canns, the very story that has has been kept alive for much longer that it should by... Sky News.

She committed suicide the next day after having her face plastered all over the TV. She was just some nobody with a some mental issues.

I think this tragic case is a prime example of the consequences of taking comments on the internet too seriously.

If she wasn't tracked down by the police, she'd still be alive today, or at least wouldn't have died in such tragic circumstances.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11144435/Madeleine-McCann-Twitter-troll-Brenda-Leyland-death-Trolling-is-never-a-victimless-crime.html

This woman led a sustained campaign of abuse against the McCanns.

She killed herself because of the shame of being outed for doing something so horrible.

She knew full well what she was doing was deeply wrong and thats why she killed herself.

I read some of her tweets and besides being completely vile they were obsessive, she was tweeting once every few minutes over many hours daily. She literally must have been glued to her phone. I remember checking the xmas day list of her tweets and she took a break for a couple of hours (probably over dinner) and then was promptly back to it. The stuff she was posting was absolutely disgusting - it must have bee horribly upsetting for the McCanns.

Personally I think that she deserved to be outed. If you are going to make vile online comments then be prepared to own them.

I dont think the tragedy in her case was her taking her own life but was her sustained hate campaign against the parents of a missing child.

BrokenArrows

I think the law is designed for the extreme cases of online harassment.

But at the same time some of the blame needs to lie with the recipient of the harassment. Harassment online is not the same as in real life.

Online you have so many options to stop the harassment. Block the person, report them via the sites report function, create a new account or the quite successful method of simply dont read the comments or use the sites in question.

From a quick search online the people who have been prosecuted in the UK for online comments are all very harsh.

2 people arrested for suggesting a murdered woman deserved it and suggesting others should have been killed too.

1 guy arrested for making sexual comments about a missing child.

Based on the above two examples the law is good.

However i doubt anyone will be arrested for something like "Hey Mikey, your **** and so is your face".
Unless it persistent and ongoing to the point that its deemed harassment.

Social media harassment is becoming the equivalent to standing outside someones house.

BrokenArrows

BrokenArrows wrote: »

I think the law is designed for the extreme cases of online harassment.

But at the same time some of the blame needs to lie with the recipient of the harassment. Harassment online is not the same as in real life.

Online you have so many options to stop the harassment. Block the person, report them via the sites report function, create a new account or the quite successful method of simply dont read the comments or use the sites in question.

From a quick search online the people who have been prosecuted in the UK for online comments are all very harsh.

2 people arrested for suggesting a murdered woman deserved it and suggesting others should have been killed too.

1 guy arrested for making sexual comments about a missing child.

Based on the above two examples the law is good.

However i doubt anyone will be arrested for something like "Hey Mikey, your **** and so is your face".
Unless it persistent and ongoing to the point that its deemed harassment.

Social media harassment is becoming the equivalent to standing outside someones house.

But what about the fact that it is has given another outlet to those who have mental health issues and no insight to themselves and are using social media to mediate some sort of the problems they have, with gay people, women, welfare recipients, or any other individual or groups. I know there is no way of controlling that use of social media, but that does not mean it should not be flagged.

Widdershins

If you close your Twitter down you'd lose all of your twits!

The Rape of Lucretia

I take offense and feel abused by the thread title. The suggestion that trolling and abuse are related is grossly incorrect. Trolling is a skilled and noble art, dating back to Voltaire, and now part of the very life blood of good fora and social media.
Someone must stand up for the good trolls out there. I demand the thread title be amended.

intheclouds

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I take offense and feel abused by the thread title. The suggestion that trolling and abuse are related is grossly incorrect. Trolling is a skilled and noble art, part of the very life blood of fora and social media.
Someone must stand up for the good trolls out there. I demand the thread title be amended.

I often wonder if it was the kids from school who thought being a smart ar$e was a great art are the ones who think trolling is an art?

iLikeWaffles

BrokenArrows wrote: »

I think the law is designed for the extreme cases of online harassment.

But at the same time some of the blame needs to lie with the recipient of the harassment. Harassment online is not the same as in real life.

Online you have so many options to stop the harassment. Block the person, report them via the sites report function, create a new account or the quite successful method of simply dont read the comments or use the sites in question.

From a quick search online the people who have been prosecuted in the UK for online comments are all very harsh.

2 people arrested for suggesting a murdered woman deserved it and suggesting others should have been killed too.

1 guy arrested for making sexual comments about a missing child.

Based on the above two examples the law is good.

However i doubt anyone will be arrested for something like "Hey Mikey, your **** and so is your face".
Unless it persistent and ongoing to the point that its deemed harassment.

Social media harassment is becoming the equivalent to standing outside someones house.

From what I said a few posts back it would be quiet simple for any site to properly moderate what is posted. The simplest solution would be to create a law for any domain to be responsible for its content. If they are responsible for what is posted they should be fined for not moderating the content correctly.

There is a lot to moderate if it is put in those terms though. YouTube comments for example. I watched a "cringe" video recently and it had content in it that was making fun of a 13-14 year old socially awkward teenager who was showing how to put on a fedora the cool way! A feminist adult who was making a" menstruation offering" to the forest, I kid you not. A dickhead comedian getting destroyed by heckles and a 7 year old asking a question at minecon about minecraft. All the content is on YouTube anyway but that doesn't stop some subscription hungry gob****e from pulling the content and making a 'making fun of' video from it. What is said in the comments is from what is from the content of the video. If the clip was not in the YouTube "cringe" video in the first place it would not be commented on. Should the internet have child protection laws yes definitely fully mature adults can handle a worded battering and must realise they have a choice to see hear and feel the outcome of their actions and other peoples reactions.

As for getting sent to jail for posting multiple death treats on social media totally right you can just ignore what is said if you are a fully grown adult but if the content was moderated it would not be posted in the first place. Those comments where probably an outlet for the person posting them though so if they didn't post them there is unknowns for what might happen if they were not able to express themselves. Don't get me wrong I cannot condone it. What if it was moderated in a way that is unknown to the poster, if it was hidden from view to regular first glance users it would not get as much attention then and the poster that posts the death treats gets to release their hate!

If peoples comments got any level of moderation though some may say "what about free speech". Where they raised that way to be totally ignorant to other peoples feelings and are they that emotionally unstable to be hating on others. Maybe some people just don't have any sort of morals to begin with. Its one big giant circle of understanding of wtf is going on.

JRant

iLikeWaffles wrote: »

From what I said a few posts back it would be quiet simple for any site to properly moderate what is posted. The simplest solution would be to create a law for any domain to be responsible for its content. If they are responsible for what is posted they should be fined for not moderating the content correctly.

There is a lot to moderate if it is put in those terms though. YouTube comments for example. I watched a "cringe" video recently and it had content in it that was making fun of a 13-14 year old socially awkward teenager who was showing how to put on a fedora the cool way! A feminist adult who was making a" menstruation offering" to the forest, I kid you not. A dickhead comedian getting destroyed by heckles and a 7 year old asking a question at minecon about minecraft. All the content is on YouTube anyway but that doesn't stop some subscription hungry gob****e from pulling the content and making a 'making fun of' video from it. What is said in the comments is from what is from the content of the video. If the clip was not in the YouTube "cringe" video in the first place it would not be commented on. Should the internet have child protection laws yes definitely fully mature adults can handle a worded battering and must realise they have a choice to see hear and feel the outcome of their actions and other peoples reactions.

As for getting sent to jail for posting multiple death treats on social media totally right you can just ignore what is said if you are a fully grown adult but if the content was moderated it would not be posted in the first place. Those comments where probably an outlet for the person posting them though so if they didn't post them there is unknowns for what might happen if they were not able to express themselves. Don't get me wrong I cannot condone it. What if it was moderated in a way that is unknown to the poster, if it was hidden from view to regular first glance users it would not get as much attention then and the poster that posts the death treats gets to release their hate!

If peoples comments got any level of moderation though some may say "what about free speech". Where they raised that way to be totally ignorant to other peoples feelings and are they that emotionally unstable to be hating on others. Maybe some people just don't have any sort of morals to begin with. Its one big giant circle of understanding of wtf is going on.

Most comments on YouTube are by the very bottom of the barrel mouth breathers. It is by far the lowest common denominator on the internet. It's becoming more common for people to just disable comments on their videos these days. Some of the stuff I've seen on there would give 4chan a run for its money.

The bottom line is however that parents need to take more responsibility for what their children are looking at online and monitor it closely.

Irish Guitarist

I used to upload videos of myself playing guitar to YouTube about 11 years ago when it was relatively new. I couldn't believe the abuse I got. I disabled comments on my videos. Someone was upset he couldn't abuse me directly so he uploaded his own video and said loads of shit about me in the description. He made up a load of crap about me and said I should kill myself. I reported this to YouTube and their response was "sorry these comments aren't against our guidelines".

There were also morons making their own pages pretending to be me. Someone took my pictures from my YouTube page and used them to create a MySpace page. I reported this to MySpace and they told me I would have to send them a picture of myself, which I did. They then said "send another picture where you're holding up a piece of paper with 'Myspace' written on it". I did that and then they said something like "send another picture with you holding that piece of paper in one hand and holding up three of the fingers on your other hand". I gave up at this point before they asked me to do the hokey cokey.

I don't think the police should get involved in this kind of thing but websites should do more about users who do nothing but sit around all day bothering other people.