Trolling

[ExRes]

Mmm, you "consider that anyone should be able to have their own opinion on twitter and facebook" but you are no longer on facebook because you "got sick of the large number of right wing posts that people seem naïve enough to keep reposting"

But aren't they just having their own opinion, one that you don't happen to share ?

 

[Greenback]

Posting an opinion is fine, harassment, libel and personal attacks are not. A minority of people don't realise, or don't understand, that just because it's the internet, it doesn't mean that the laws we have in place don't apply.

 

[Smudger105e]

Mmm, you "consider that anyone should be able to have their own opinion on twitter and facebook" but you are no longer on facebook because you "got sick of the large number of right wing posts that people seem naïve enough to keep reposting"

But aren't they just having their own opinion, one that you don't happen to share ?

Yes indeed. But them having their own opinion that I don't happen to agree with does not mean they should be banned from the appropriate social media. What I did was removed myself so I was not subjected to the views. Not saying they are wrong as they are entitled to whatever views they may have.

And the last post on FB which caused me to delete it was a picture of an electric chair with the tagline 'this is what we should do with paedophiles'.

And paedophiles was spelt wong on the post too!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And paedophiles was spelt wong on the post too!

I like your subtle pun on words spelt incorrectly. Did they show the word "wong" in Chinese script...

 

[starrymarkb]

I believe the Americans spell it as Pedophile - usually you can tell when someone has cut and paste something from the US and edited in "UK" or "Britain" - there was a good one a while ago that claimed "Vets should be honored" (yes saving Animals is good) and "Seniors shouldn't have to pay for their drugs" (which thanks to the NHS, old people in the UK don't pay!) - Good sentiments if it wasn't for the racism around it!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I believe the Americans spell it as Pedophile - usually you can tell when someone has cut and paste something from the US and edited in "UK" or "Britain" - there was a good one a while ago that claimed "Vets should be honored" (yes saving Animals is good) and "Seniors shouldn't have to pay for their drugs" (which thanks to the NHS, old people in the UK don't pay!) - Good sentiments if it wasn't for the racism around it!

Heavens above, what connotations do the Americans therefore attach to the word pedometer...

 

[fowler9]

I have a lot of friends who have taken to deleting anyone who shares something by Britain First. I can understand them doing that but I personally prefer not to and explain why I think what they have posted is wrong and actually in general factually incorrect or wrong. Everyone is different and I like to use Facebook to keep in touch with people I know and want to keep in touch with, I don't mistake Facebooks use of the word friends for all of these people actually being what I would call friends. It is purely a personal opinion but I think if it reaches the point where you want to remove youreslf from it you should have a look at the people you associate with and question why you do so.

 

[meridian2]

Posting an opinion is fine, harassment, libel and personal attacks are not. A minority of people don't realise, or don't understand, that just because it's the internet, it doesn't mean that the laws we have in place don't apply.

I agree that since the inception of social media, certain people have blurred the lines between what is and is not responsible posting. But I believe you are using the minority of cases on Twitter to cloud your judgement on the sites overall morality, which does not revolve around the 'troll' that's using it.

 

[Greenback]

I agree that since the inception of social media, certain people have blurred the lines between what is and is not responsible posting. But I believe you are using the minority of cases on Twitter to cloud your judgement on the sites overall morality, which does not revolve around the 'troll' that's using it.

I don't think my judgement is clouded at all, but you are free to disagree. I simply won't use Twitter because there are too many foul mouthed rants on it, which I guess is largely a result of the 140 character limit.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . I simply won't use Twitter because there are too many foul mouthed rants on it, which I guess is largely a result of the 140 character limit.

It didn't occur to me that 'foul mouthed rants' were a result of the system's character limit. I'd assumed that they were a consequence of nature of the biological component that generates the rants.

 

[Busaholic]

'Trolling' is the latest and most visible strand in the long and ignoble tradition of the 'poison pen' letter, being in the main conducted anonymously or pseudonymously with little chance of the perpretator ever being held responsible publically for what may be odious views or obnoxious allegations against people they've probably never met, often grossly libellous if taken seriously. It is a sad fact that many perpretators are female and post-menopausal and probably full of self-loathing, which may describe the person who apparently took her own life after Sky TV's intervention.

My family knew only too well how such an individual can wreak havoc and cause lasting damage when, after my brother bled to death aged five in a cottage hospital following an operation to remove his tonsils, and the resulting devastation with my mother seven months pregnant, an individual chose to subject my mother and father to the most debased allegations that were obviously the work of a warped mind. I was not quite three then and I never saw my mother well again in her lifetime. The fact that the author was later revealed as a friend of my grandmother's hardly improved family relations either, though she was never prosecuted. I've had a revulsion of spinster music teachers ever since, though.

 

[Greenback]

It didn't occur to me that 'foul mouthed rants' were a result of the system's character limit. I'd assumed that they were a consequence of nature of the biological component that generates the rants.

You are probably right. My knowledge of Twitter is quite limited, as you can no doubt tell!

'Trolling' is the latest and most visible strand in the long and ignoble tradition of the 'poison pen' letter, being in the main conducted anonymously or pseudonymously with little chance of the perpretator ever being held responsible publically for what may be odious views or obnoxious allegations against people they've probably never met, often grossly libellous if taken seriously. It is a sad fact that many perpretators are female and post-menopausal and probably full of self-loathing, which may describe the person who apparently took her own life after Sky TV's intervention.

I'm sure that these sort of people get a sense of importance and power through using social media.

Sorry to hear about what happened to your family, by the way.

 

[Busaholic]

You are probably right. My knowledge of Twitter is quite limited, as you can no doubt tell!



I'm sure that these sort of people get a sense of importance and power through using social media.

Sorry to hear about what happened to your family, by the way.

Thank you for that,it's much appreciated.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Here was I thinking that "Trolling" was the name of an old song that was sung by "Flanagan and Allen"..........

 

[ExRes]

Here we go again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29641400

what sort of pathetic world are we living in now, this is yet another example of why these 'social' media toys should be shut down for good

 

[Clip]

Here we go again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29641400

what sort of pathetic world are we living in now, this is yet another example of why these 'social' media toys should be shut down for good

Why? They are a useful tool for communicating and finding things out that you are interested in - music release, gigs, nightclubs, what colour nails your friends have created.

If you are saying it solely because of the abuse that people encounter by using them then should we shut down the railways/buses/tubes because people encounter the same on them too?

No? I didnt think so. Maybe you are being a little bit more hysterical than the Daily Mail here?

 

[ExRes]

Why? They are a useful tool for communicating and finding things out that you are interested in - music release, gigs, nightclubs, what colour nails your friends have created.

If you are saying it solely because of the abuse that people encounter by using them then should we shut down the railways/buses/tubes because people encounter the same on them too?

No? I didnt think so. Maybe you are being a little bit more hysterical than the Daily Mail here?

So I'm hysterical because of the amount of recent suicides directly related to social media abuse, and no, I'm not just referring to the most recent high profile suicide

Abuse of all descriptions, grooming of minors, arranging for home invasions etc etc etc, but you seem to think that nail colours are an interesting subject, that's one way of burying your head in the sand I guess

And please stop the boring Daily Mail rubbish, it ceased to be funny 10 years ago

 

[tbtc]

I think that the definition of “trolling” really depends on how old you are/ how long you’ve been online.

In modern terms/ to younger users, “trolling” is a vague catch-all term for any antisocial behaviour that has lost its specific meaning (much like the way that “ironic” nowadays means anything that sounds like bad luck, rather than the previous definition). Trolling (in its modern definition) apparently now includes blatant bullying/ unsubtle baiting - I've heard people use it as a shorthand for offline bullying too.

For me, “trolling” meant trying to change the subject online to get a reaction, usually in a disingenuous/ sly way (not to be confused with “flaming”, which is saying something brazenly to get an equally hysterical reaction). Trolling is “dog whistle” behaviour, the art of bringing something up without actually going as far as saying something libellous.

Look at politics, and the way that some people will happily “confuse” two issues (or try to make a link between them) – trolling (to me) is the kind of “I’m just mentioning a few things in the hope that you will jump to a certain conclusion” behaviour.

Trolls will happily slip things like “immigration” or “crime” or “religion” into an argument, stand back and watch the reaction of others. The classic example is the “#justsaying” / “#justmentioning” hashtags on Twitter where you put a couple of seemingly unrelated things together and waiting for someone else to join the dots.

Funnily enough, some of the contributors to this thread have engaged in their fair share of trolling in the past – such as trying to derail threads by mentioning certain (unrelated) hot potato issues that they know will get people to react.

There are plenty of well established touchstones on this Forum that you know you could lob into a thread and will lead someone to “bite” – it doesn’t even have to be party politics/ immigration/ football. Just casually mention Beeching/ the Barnett Formula/ ticket barriers/ staff working at Christmas/ guided busways/ cyclists on trains/ prams on trains/ concessions for pensioners/ “excessive” TOC profits/ drivers only having to push a button/ guards always hiding in the back cab/ all enthusiasts being frustrated wannabe drivers (etc) into an existing thread, step back a safe distance and see the sparks fly.

Take the recent thread on GOBLIN wiring. I could derail that by saying something like “GOBLIN is only getting electrified because it’s in London and London gets everything it wants whilst oop North we only have Pacers” or maybe “I’m sure that this will be done on budget and on time like Crossrail because Londoners know how to organise a project properly, unlike those overbudget delayed schemes oop North – no wonder they can’t get more investment when they are so bad at managing the projects that they do have” – both would be gross exaggerations of course, but I guarantee that mentioning either of them on the GOBLIN thread would see more people reacting passionately (than those who are trying to have a sober conversation about the infrastructure of this particular line).

Now, I wouldn’t do that, but I could give examples of where other people have trolled threads by trying to make them about some touchstone issue (instead of what the OP intended them to be about). I’m sure I’m guilty of it a few times too (”let he who is without sin” and all that...)

However, that’s nothing to do with what this lady did – she wasn’t being subtle, she was expressing her feelings very blatantly. I’d have called that “flaming”, from my earlier days online – deliberately stoking controversy, saying blunt things to try to get a reaction (unlike the subtlety of trolling).

"Flaming" and "banter" seem two sides of the same coin - the act of saying something brazenly outrageous for the sake of getting a reaction from people (the Frankie Boyle approach). No subtlety required.

The only reason I’m not sure that “flaming” is the most appropriate word here is that she wasn’t addressing the abuse directly at the couple concerned (presumably because they aren’t on Social Media – if they were then she may well have sent it to them, but that’s now a moot point), she doesn't even seem to have been saying this directly to anyone who;d be outraged. Maybe there needs to be a different word for “saying strong things about someone” versus “saying strong things to someone”? Neither of these is “trolling” in the old sense.

(on a different tack – can you imagine the tabloid hysteria if it had been a BBC employee who had “doorstepped” this woman? The Director General would have been dragged before some Parliamentary committee, the tabloid reaction would have been much worse than the Brand/ Ross/ Sachs story... – sorry, that’s me dragging the conversation off in a different direction – to try to get a reaction – which is trolling... yes, I know, I know... )

 

[Clip]

So I'm hysterical because of the amount of recent suicides directly related to social media abuse, and no, I'm not just referring to the most recent high profile suicide

Abuse of all descriptions, grooming of minors, arranging for home invasions etc etc etc, but you seem to think that nail colours are an interesting subject, that's one way of burying your head in the sand I guess

And please stop the boring Daily Mail rubbish, it ceased to be funny 10 years ago

So you want to shut down all forms of social media because now you are including suicide into the discussion when you first were mentioning something someone said on telly and got a backlash from?

If thats not hysterical then I dont know what is.

P.S. That would mean forums to shut down to becuase they are a form of social media but you knew that didnt you

 

[muz379]

Trolling itself was always going on a forum and then saying something which would then flame the situation and then leave after causing chaos.

Nowadays its something different, it can be just abuse towards someone else but what has made me really wonder about this case in the news the last week is that not one tweet was actualy @ the McCans. She always used a # to speak about them. And why is it that no one can have that opinion of them without being shot down?Lots of forums out there where you cant speak about it. Why?

Why is this issue one that seemingly divides the nation yet anything negative gets shot down,locked down and gets told that you are inhuman for putting the opposite view across?

I agree I think the term troll has come too much into public use .My early perceptions of the term where to go on an internet forum or website , say something so outlandishly stupid or offensive and then leave and watch the mayhem or carry on as if you truly believe that when actually you know its stupid .

Now like a lot of words it is used as a way to label something you dont quite agree with but are too lazy to articulate a proper argument to defeat it .

I also agree that discussion about that case is something that is too often closed down through fear of getting into trouble . When I welcome discussion about the case, like many people from what I have read about it there are things that dont add up to me about it

And worse than that why are we letting the media set the agenda on such an issue so much so that a reporter hunted this woman down , put her on television against her will and made her think that her life was now not worth living so she topped it.

I also agree that the way sky news dealt with this matter was completely unethical and any investigative journalist that is handling something as sensitive as this matter should seek legal advice and should have probably refereed the case to the police first before outing her on national TV in such a way , if the case had been handed over to the police then he should have let them decide what they wanted to do with it before outing her on national TV . It was Trial by sky news rather than trial by the established criminal justice system we have in this country and that is something SKY should have to answer questions over in my opinion .

She wasnt trolling, she was having an opinion,maybe not in the nicest way at times(if you see the tweets then comment if not then dont) but she is like everyone - entitled to their opinion.Thats not trolling. And dont let the media tell you otherwise.

I have seen some of the tweets . I kind of disagree with you here . If she had made 1 or 2 tweets over the matter saying words to the effect that others have used which is that not everything adds up about the case I would agree she was merely having an opinion .

In the beginning her tweets where about the find Maddie fund being misused because the McCans used it for legal fees for a libel case and to keep up their mortgage payments . Thats legitimate criticism in my view and who knows this woman might have even given money to that .

But for her to go on and make something like 4000 tweets and some of the things she has said in later tweets wishing suffering etc on the McCans to me is much more like a campaign against them which in my mind would amount to harassment .But without being overly familiar with the CPS code on social media communications I am unsure of what the CPS would actually make of it .


As for social media . A number of people have got themselves into trouble over things they have said on it , some people like to hide behind the anonymity it gives them but then dont realize that legally there are still some things you cant say . Or legally they might think just because only their followers actually see it its ok but the way the law sees the situation because anybody with an internet connection can access it you have been deemed to communicate your idea to the whole world .

I dont use twitter that often - sometimes go on it to see a twitter feed for some service I am going to use to find out if there is any disruption but short of that I never bother , I am not a fan of the 120 character word limit , it only encourages people to use threats to end arguments rather than back them up with a reasoned articulated argument . Instead people just resort to threatening to rape or kill someone because they dont agree with them which is a really dumb way to settle an argument .

I however dont agree that it should be shut down , people should have a right to use it as long as they dont use it for illegal purposes , if they do use it for those they should be subject to the same restrictions people are with spoken word or written word .

From what I can gather from the CPS code on social media communications they will prosecute if you have used social media to make threats / harass someone /breached a court order telling you not to communicate someone or posted something grossly obscene , untrue or offensive . That to me seems pretty fair .

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Why? They are a useful tool for communicating and finding things out that you are interested in - music release, gigs, nightclubs, what colour nails your friends have created.

Is a gig an early form of what became a cabriolet?

 

[Clip]

Is a gig an early form of what became a cabriolet?

No idea Im not that old

 

[fowler9]

So I'm hysterical because of the amount of recent suicides directly related to social media abuse, and no, I'm not just referring to the most recent high profile suicide

Abuse of all descriptions, grooming of minors, arranging for home invasions etc etc etc, but you seem to think that nail colours are an interesting subject, that's one way of burying your head in the sand I guess

And please stop the boring Daily Mail rubbish, it ceased to be funny 10 years ago

I can't agree with you. If we are going to shut down things that could arguably have caused suicide we would have to shut down the current government. And what is wrong with thinking nail colours are an interesting subject. I am sure it hasn't escaped your notice that some people think being interested in the railways is grounds for sectioning.

I also don't think that Clip said he thinks nail colours are interesting. I don't much care if he does. Fair enough.

 

[muz379]

Abuse of all descriptions, grooming of minors, arranging for home invasions etc etc etc, but you seem to think that nail colours are an interesting subject, that's one way of burying your head in the sand I guess

Of course as demonstrated by the current plethora of historical abuse cases that are gracing the front pages of the newspapers and our courts grooming of minors is not something that is by any means new Its been going on for years before the internet was even wholesale .

If anything its harder now with the internet because the possibility that you might be speaking to someone that is not a 12 year old girl but actually a 30 year old man sitting in a nice comfy office in a police HQ somewhere tracking you down and collecting evidence to bring you to justice has made grooming minors online a much riskier business .

There was nothing in rotherham or rochdale that could not have been carried out had Facebook or twitter not existed

and organizing home invasions has been done many times before long before Facebook and twitter. This is arguably another thing that twitter and Facebook actually make harder because it leaves a nice trail of evidence the police can then use to show your pre planning .

How do we think the IRA coped without Facebook or Twitter . Because many would argue they had a pretty successful bombing campaign on mainland Britain without social media being involved . In fact if anything social media would have made identifying known associates of people in the IRA easier for the security services .

Of course I know people use social media for illegitimate purposes . But people use bank accounts to launder illegal dirty money . It doesn't mean we should banish bank accounts . How many crimes have been organized over old school copper wire telephone infrastructure or do you think that should be banished along with social media ? Or how many bank robberies have featured cars as getaway vehicles , lets banish them too .

Personally I dont think its proportionate just to ban things just because people hijack them for illegitimate means . It just means we should police their use as we have been doing in this country for some time now and people can be prosecuted for their actions online .

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

However, that’s nothing to do with what this lady did – she wasn’t being subtle, she was expressing her feelings very blatantly. I’d have called that “flaming”, from my earlier days online – deliberately stoking controversy, saying blunt things to try to get a reaction (unlike the subtlety of trolling).

There are times when both of us are in complete agreement and this most certainly is one of them.

 

[dakta]

Whilst you can't blame social media directly for these things, their prominence in today's society does highlight we need to change and moderate the way we interact.

I've never really considered 'trolling' an official term (maybe it is? what is defined by 'official' anyway?) but just one of those classifications born from forums that has migrated to the world of facebook and sms messaging etc... so it's probably quite a loosely defined term on the best of days and subject to a lot of interpretation.

Nonetheless I do agree with anyone thinking the general meaning or use of the term has changed, i would have considered once it simply to be anyone who is trying to manipulate a discussion to get a heated reaction. Change the subject, tell lies, exaggerate facts, selectively ignore valid arguements etc.

That's fine, but we have actually managed to desensitize ourselves to the point where pure hate is now being classified on the same level as what used to be just 'general annoying forum behaviour'.

Trolling leaves people annoyed, irritated or, in lucky situations, indifferent. It doesn't (or shouldn't) cause hurt.

On another forum where this topic was discussed, it went off into a debate about 'freedom of speech and expression of opinion'. This is a nasty one because anyone who thinks Brenda or any other example demonstrated unreasonable expression were quickly targeted themselves for being against free speech. Not always the case.

The problem with freedom, is a lot of people don't actually understand it. They have the idea of freedom chained to the concept of being able to do xxyyzz without consequence. Technically, we have the freedom to do a lot of things, but a lot of these things can, and do, have consequences or effects. You are free to board a train. A ticket isn't free. You have the freedom of choice to board with, or without the paid ticket. This choice may have consequences outside the jurisdiction of your freedoms.

We have freedom of speech and opinion, and expression. That means in the pub environment described earlier in the thread, there's nothing stopping you from expressing an opinion. But if it's filled with hate, Big Bob the bully might take offense at this. This is your consequence for spewing hate. Now, Bob might react in other ways, he could use his own freedom of speech to argue back, or he might choose another route he is technically free to use too. Problem is this itself might have consequences for him when he's later charged with assault.

The bottom line is, if you're planning to use your freedom of speech to put out an opinion that is deliberately inflammatory, or even downright nasty, you can't rely on disassociating yourself from it, the internet isn't anonymous, it can, and will come back to you. If you put out enough hate, it could actually multiply and come back at you.

It's a sad outcome in this case, it really is. It shouldn't have happened, but reading some of the comments and the sorts of comments used in other examples, it doesn't really surprise me, after seeing just how cold and downright callous people are when they think it won't come back, when it does it does it with a right vengeance to a degree where they find themselves looking over their shoulder.

This situation really should be a wakeup call to people who post nastiness in the name of expression that they should think a bit more about what they are doing and be careful.

And after doing a bit of research and seeing what sort of comments people (largely kids I suspect) are comfortable with posting, I think we will see more examples of this. A lot of it seriously can't be pinned down on expressing opinions - we don't see so much 'i think the mccans know more than they are letting on' but rather 'they should be dragged outside and shot'.

The thing is, there are people out there who think the last seven words I've just wrote above is actually reasonable for online publication. People will fiercely defend their 'right' to behave in this manner. That's about as worrying as the hate itself.

 

[ExRes]

I can't agree with you. If we are going to shut down things that could arguably have caused suicide we would have to shut down the current government. And what is wrong with thinking nail colours are an interesting subject. I am sure it hasn't escaped your notice that some people think being interested in the railways is grounds for sectioning.

I also don't think that Clip said he thinks nail colours are interesting. I don't much care if he does. Fair enough.

Interesting, so we now have the present government responsible for suicides, oh for the 13 years of Labour then when nobody came to any harm at all

It seems that a favourite pastime of some on here is listening to the same old record time after time, fair enough

 

[fowler9]

Interesting, so we now have the present government responsible for suicides, oh for the 13 years of Labour then when nobody came to any harm at all

It seems that a favourite pastime of some on here is listening to the same old record time after time, fair enough

But we can't really kick out the last government because they already got kicked out so we are stuck with kicking out the present one. It would seem to me it is you that is stuck in the old "It was all their fault" argument.

 

[Greenback]

Things like Twitter and Facebook encourage those who may not have as balanced an outlook on things as most, those who actually enjoy spitting out threats and hatred, and who take great enjoyment from thinking they are hiding behind an anonymous identity.

In my view, these things need to have tighter controls, and this is largely down to the operators. However, there still seems to be a feeling amongst some that anything on the internet should be uncontrolled and uncensored. I think this is a hangover from the early days of the web, when that is how it was seen by those fortunate to have access.

Times have changed, though, and despite the idealistic feelings of the early pioneers and users, we have to recognise that social media has the power to cause a lot of misery to a lot of people, and that tighter regulation and proper enforcement of the laws of this country is for the best.

 

[muz379]

Things like Twitter and Facebook encourage those who may not have as balanced an outlook on things as most, those who actually enjoy spitting out threats and hatred, and who take great enjoyment from thinking they are hiding behind an anonymous identity.

In my view, these things need to have tighter controls, and this is largely down to the operators. However, there still seems to be a feeling amongst some that anything on the internet should be uncontrolled and uncensored. I think this is a hangover from the early days of the web, when that is how it was seen by those fortunate to have access.

Times have changed, though, and despite the idealistic feelings of the early pioneers and users, we have to recognise that social media has the power to cause a lot of misery to a lot of people, and that tighter regulation and proper enforcement of the laws of this country is for the best.

Things have been improving recently on the legal front . There have been increasing numbers of prosecutions for comments and threats made on twitter and Facebook etc and I think the way things are going it is only going to increase . I can only imagine the look of shock on some of the perpetrators faces when the police knock on their door.

I do think it is important that social media is policed and people are held to account for their words on their , but I am also worried what impeding on the freedom of speech on the internet could do to it in general . I mean whilst I do think something should be done about people who threaten or harass others over the internet . I dont have a problem with websites like sickipedia - because with sickipedia I would actually have to go out and search for the offensive material . Whereas with twitter and facebook it is broadcast for the world to see .

I think social media is responsible for a bit of a deterioration in the standards of current affairs discussion . Lets take the recent debacle involving the ill worded remarks of Judy Finnigan . It used to be if you wanted to issue a rebuttal to what Judy has said you would have had to have well worded it in order for your letter or comment to end up published in a newspaper. However now all you have to do in order to display your disagreement with what Judy has said is log onto facebook or twitter and threaten to rape or kill her or her daughter .