Internet trolls beware

[Mizango]

[Rhyis.]

/thread?

[Ksandra]

Not to mention this is an adult emotionally abusing a minor in a very perverted way. Sadistic even.

Exactly.


Now I dunno what's going on with that situation anymore tbh, I know the mom keeps going to courts to try and get something to happen. But the courts last I knew just kept basically saying "there's no law against what she did." That case REALLY makes me feel there needs to be something. But ya again, where is the line drawn? I think I'd be extremely pissed if a similar situation happens again just because people want to be able to do absolutely anything on the internet, but I have no idea what should be done to prevent it, but at the same time not go over the top.

[Max™]

I would like to find out about this magical power that gives me the ability to make others act against their will.

Holy fuck, that would either be awesome, or THE END OF ALL THINGS AS FIRE AND SCREAMING CHILDREN RAINED FROM THE HEAVENS, SIGNALING TO THE GREAT OLD ONES THAT THIS WORLD WAS NOW RIPE, AND READY TO HAVE THE SANITY OF THOSE LIVING UPON IT DEVOURED LIKE GRAPES... TERRIFIED GRAPES!

[Yabby]

Exactly.


Now I dunno what's going on with that situation anymore tbh, I know the mom keeps going to courts to try and get something to happen. But the courts last I knew just kept basically saying "there's no law against what she did." That case REALLY makes me feel there needs to be something. But ya again, where is the line drawn? I think I'd be extremely pissed if a similar situation happens again just because people want to be able to do absolutely anything on the internet, but I have no idea what should be done to prevent it, but at the same time not go over the top.

Well thats the problem with law and trying to police the internet. There isn't going to be a line on this sort of thing. For some odd reason you can't make a law about one particular thing and call it a day. After one law passes, another will follow. All it takes is one law to start the ball rolling.

[Ksandra]

I wouldn't have a problem if they stuck to some kind of minor protection laws. Obviously there will be cases that are hard to prove if an adult knew the person was a minor. But if they can (like in the suicide case) in some, then at least that is a small bit of comfort. It wouldn't help all cases, but any case it does help would make it worth it.


[edit] here are the details on the case I was talking about btw:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lori_Drew

Drew, a 47 year old woman living in Missouri, was the mother of one of Megan Meier's former friends. Meier, also a Missouri resident, lived only four houses down the street from Drew.

Meier met Drew's daughter while she was in 7th grade at Fort Zumwalt West Middle School and the two became friends. However, Meier was miserable at the school and transferred to a local Catholic school the following year. At this time, Meier informed Drew's daughter that she no longer wanted to remain friends.

During the summer of 2006, Drew became concerned that Meier was spreading rumors about her daughter. Drew, her daughter, and Drew's employee, Ashley Grills, came up with the idea of using a fake MySpace profile for a fictitious 16 year old boy with the alias "Josh Evans" to find out what Meier was saying about Drew's daughter.

Around September 20, 2006, the MySpace account for the "Josh Evans" alias was created. At the time Drew operated the Josh Evans MySpace account, she was aware that Meier had been taking antidepressant medication.

Throughout September 2006, Drew used the fake MySpace account to contact Meier. Meier believed she was in contact with a 16 year old boy, Josh Evans. Around September 22, 2006, Drew, using the Josh Evans alias, told Meier she was "sexi". Continuing into early October, Meier and "Josh Evans" engaged in a flirtatious relationship.

Around October 16, 2006, the fictitious Josh Evans told Meier that the world would be a better place without her. Other MySpace members whose profiles were linked with the Josh Evans profile also began to harass Meier. Approximately fifteen minutes after this exchange, Meier's mother, Tina, discovered that her daughter had hanged herself from her bedroom closet.

Drew, after hearing about Meier's death, caused the Josh Evans MySpace account to be deleted. Drew also instructed another minor who knew about Drew's activities to "keep her mouth shut".

[Byrthnoth]

The internet is, by its very nature, only capable of transferring information. It basically breaks down to facts, opinions, and art. Some of the opinions shared may be incorrect, or may qualify as libel. Some of the art or facts shared may qualify as copyright infringement, or be indicative of some crime in the real world.

Now, in my opinion there are very very good current arguments for copyright persecution, and obviously when following the path of a real world crime information obtained from subpoenas of websites can be vital. But... the arguments for libel are a little outdated, honestly. If two bitches want to call each other whores online, I say "Game on!" If someone was in a porno, it's out there on the internet for everyone to see anyway. If they didn't, the lack of evidence is equally damning to their opponent's claim. Everything is on the internet, absence of evidence is essentially evidence of absence these days.

The problem is when it comes to kids. Right now there's a generational gap between a plugged-in mentality and unplugged parents. The supervision that people from our generation would give to our childrens online habits is simply not there. If someone from our generation was little Jenny's parent, hopefully we'd have had a discussion about how dumb it was to "sext" people around the same time that we had "the talk" with her. "Don't take pictures of yourself naked until you're older, tits or gtfo is bait, and never ever go to 4chan."

tl;dr - I don't think they should be able to subpoena user lists for something as stupid as libel. Bitches need to get less sensitive.

[pahnphoenix]

I feel a bit conflicted. On the one hand, internet autism stricken misanthropes are an eyesore, but on the other, doesn't this violate a bit of the principles behind the internet? An anarchic medium where things not usually accepted by society may flourish and therefore produce alternative idea, and porn.

Is more regulation of the internet in this case a good thing?

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/20...google_lawsuit

re: privacy issues, i'm not into fighting anonymity on the net.

re: *trolling* however, you always need to be prepared for shit like this. i don't mean to cover your ass, i mean to continue the troll. when your plan fails (eg you get outed), you need to somehow get that failure to be in service of a larger success (in this case, a larger troll). eg google tells you who's been calling you a whore on your youtube channel, and it turns out to be your mother.

[Chun Liroy]

I don't get what's the problem, women mentally abuse men everyday and I don't see none of them getting arrested.

[Serra]

I agree that there needs to be some minor protection laws in some cases, but just to play devil's advocate, what happens in an online game if you're playing against someone you know is a kid and beat them and say, "haha, you suck, go kill yourself" or something and they do? Or even (since I'm assuming many of us here have played at least one MMO), if someone who's a minor says they're gonna kill themselves if they're not allowed to lot a rare item?

[Kuya]

Perhaps we should put warning labels on the internet that say: "Warning: May lead one to suicide if depressed".

[Yabby]

That's it! the internet needs a splash page.

>>>>Click to enter the internet<<<<

[Silenka]

With a surgeon general's warning stating that posting sensitive information about yourself could lead to harassment and/or death.

[Rhyis.]

Much simpler. Just use the theme park gauge to determine who and who can't use the internet.

__________________________________________
__>>You must be this tall to ride on the internet<<__
||
||
||
||
||
||

[miokomioko]

She gave up her right to remain an anonymous troll when she was posting unauthorized footage/images of the "victim." What an idiot. If you're going to be an asshole, do it smart by not blatantly breaking obvious laws in the process.

[Shadowscythe]

Cases like these seem to be getting slowly more frequent, but what about cross country incidents? How does say a Swedish court order Mr. UAE Citizen to stop telling Kelly45 she's an e-hooker. Without the UN itself passing the laws or some other similar organisation isn't it ultimately redundant for some people?

I've always seen the internet like space, there's no way we're going to be able to police it successfully when we cant even communicate with other countries successfully without the use of a plane or a bomb.

[Ashmada]

Cases like these seem to be getting slowly more frequent, but what about cross country incidents? How does say a Swedish court order Mr. UAE Citizen to stop telling Kelly45 she's an e-hooker. Without the UN itself passing the laws or some other similar organisation isn't it ultimately redundant for some people?

I've always seen the internet like space, there's no way we're going to be able to police it successfully when we cant even communicate with other countries successfully without the use of a plane or a bomb.

This.
By and large, not only are libel laws on the internet silly (don't know who that bitch is, but she needs to grow a spine), but they're basically impossible to enforce.

Hell, take libel laws and assume everyone has the mentallity of that bitch (someone insults me, I don't automatically think "gonna sue", and I bet most people don't) and nearly every BG poster would be suing every other BG poster.
Note, the lulz from it would be tremendous.

Between the sheer amount of claims and the international issues, shit'd be unenforceable. And a waste of time.

[Maguspk]

The internet wasn't created as a haven for anonymity, if you think you have a right to anonymity on the internet you're mistaken. Anonymity is just a result of the nature of the internet itself and in certain cases that veil ought to be breached. This case was a bit stupid. As far as the laws go, sure enforcing the laws in the context of online interaction is difficult and might even be wasteful but it's not like it's inherently wrong.

[Correction]

"Making the internet safe from bullying" is a cute slogan and all, but where's the discussion on how to educate the next generation on how not to be a fucking retard with your public image on the internet? It should be in the standard curriculum for being a productive adult, like touch typing, driving a manual transmission and building a campfire safely.

Oh fuck, nobody knows how to do the above, either. Well, so much for that idea.

[Yugl]

I would like to find out about this magical power that gives me the ability to make others act against their will.

People want to post on BG. You ban people on BG. The banned people retain a will to post on BG. You still banned them. They cannot fulfill act of their will.