nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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 .

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

learn_more

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

...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.

I would have sent them a picture holding up 2 fingers and not 3.

iLikeWaffles

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

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.

Should've just asked you to "put shoe on head"

Graham

learn_more wrote: »

I would have sent them a picture holding up 2 fingers and not 3.

Careful now, that's sounds remarkably close to online abuse

Holograph

There are undoubtedly horrendous cases of online harassment/stalking - this is far beyond mere disagreement or aggressive responses that people should be able to rise above.

However, while I know the ideal would be that people did not harass/stalk, the world is not ideal, so those on the receiving end would be doing themselves a favour by ignoring as much as they can, avoiding seeing what is being said about them, and blocking. Creating a new account if necessary. It's not fair but there is no shame in protecting yourself. They are not winning if they cannot harass you or get to you, even if you have to do something about it that you would rather not. Their aim is to torment you and if that opportunity is no longer available to them, then that's not what they want.

The term "troll" is constantly misused too by people who don't understand social media - "So and so celeb gets tough on internet trolls" in relation to e.g. a famous woman's new hairstyle or whatever getting criticised. Trolling is not necessarily verbal abuse at all, or disagreement - it's getting a rise out of people for the hell of it (and can be very funny! Some exceptionally poe-faced stuff is a sitting target for wind-ups).

learn_more

intheclouds wrote: »

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.

I don't agree with a single word of this post.

"Sustained Campaign" is just hyperbolic language.

Have the McCann's really suffered by any of her comments. And if so , how much ?

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

I can't get my head around this comment. To say someone feeling hurt by a comment is comparable to the pain and loss that is caused by a relative taking their own lives ? Flabbergasted by that statement really.

MRnotlob606

I need to continue trolling on the internet as it is an overcompensation for my lack of social skills and poor hygiene.

intheclouds

learn_more wrote: »

I don't agree with a single word of this post.

"Sustained Campaign" is just hyperbolic language.

Have the McCann's really suffered by any of her comments. And if so , how much ?

I can't get my head around this comment. To say someone feeling hurt by a comment is comparable to the pain and loss that is caused by a relative taking their own lives ? Flabbergasted by that statement really.

Im sorry you don't understand what a sustained campaign is. Nothing hyperbolic about it. Over 400 hate tweets over the best part of a year. No idea how much the McCanns suffered, but any suffering at all is more than they should have to suffer from a troll IMO.

I wasn't making any comments on the woman's relatives, naturally they will have felt pain and loss. But possibly the discovery of how hateful and disgusting the woman was when she thought she was anonymous will have been a bigger shock. The woman's true colours were exposed and she killed herself as a result. The mere fact she killed herself when outed shows that she knew what a disgusting way she had behaved.

This woman killed herself over her own actions. So she knew they were something to be ashamed of. I really don't have a lot of sympathy for someone like this. Good for you if you do.

jameorahiely

intheclouds wrote: »

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.

This here is irony.

Can you provide the tweets on christmas day?

According to reports:
She took Christmas Day and Boxing Day off that year but was straight back to her normal, frantic tweeting schedule by 27 December

(anyone can check her tweets on greptweet to verify)

Why are you still trolling this woman and spreading false information about her almost 3years after her death?

Ieony at it's finest

intheclouds

jameorahiely wrote: »

This here is irony.

Can you provide the tweets on christmas day?

According to reports:
She took Christmas Day and Boxing Day off that year but was straight back to her normal, frantic tweeting schedule by 27 December

(anyone can check her tweets on greptweet to verify)

Why are you still trolling this woman and spreading false information about her almost 3years after her death?

Ieony at it's finest

Meh, perhaps I misremembered the exact dates.

Doesn't change the point being made.

If you think I'm trolling then you need to brush up on the old comprehension skills. Laughable. Or is it just a sort of sad attempt at trolling? Surely you can do better?

iLikeWaffles

intheclouds wrote: »

Im sorry you don't understand what a sustained campaign is. Nothing hyperbolic about it. Over 400 hate tweets over the best part of a year. No idea how much the McCanns suffered, but any suffering at all is more than they should have to suffer from a troll IMO.

I wasn't making any comments on the woman's relatives, naturally they will have felt pain and loss. But possibly the discovery of how hateful and disgusting the woman was when she thought she was anonymous will have been a bigger shock. The woman's true colours were exposed and she killed herself as a result. The mere fact she killed herself when outed shows that she knew what a disgusting way she had behaved.

This woman killed herself over her own actions. So she knew they were something to be ashamed of. I really don't have a lot of sympathy for someone like this. Good for you if you do.

On behalf of trolls everywhere I say that someone who is that obsessive deserve not to be called a troll. Mentally ill yes troll no. That's the exact distinction that makes people miscommunicate. Just another misunderstanding of wtf is going on.