Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/04/16 05:27:08
Subject: Re:"Social Autopsy" anti cyber-bullying campaign creates Orwellian cyber-bullying nightmare
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Here's a few comments from their Kickstarter page. "Brittany" appears to be associated with the project.
Newguy 2 days ago
It's not clear to me how the database will be used, or how it will be populated. Could you please clarify?
Internet Guy 2 days ago
Won't this lead to a place of thought conformity? Imagine if a person anonymously declares an unpopular opinion and your website links that opinion to their "place of employment." That has the very real effect of someone losing their job. How is that progress? If a person fears expressing an unpopular opinion, and doesn't because it could cost them their job, isn't that in itself a form of cyberbullying?
Let's say Jane holds an opinion on abortion and the environment in which they live and work believes counter to their belief. If they find out Jane expresses that unpopular opinion, the people where Jane lives and works could ostracized that her.
Let's say there is a young girl in the Arab world that believes in women's rights, but she has to post her thoughts anonymously. If the community or government found out who is expressing an opinion that is not in line with the group think, then that person is going to be ostracized and their voice and opinion will be silenced.
Anonymity can do good as mush as it can do bad. My point is that your site could be used to cyberbully people into silence and fear or freely expressing a valid unpopular opinion.
Brittany 2 days ago
I just want to stress we are only publishing hate speech as defined by the law. "hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group." Hate speech isn't saying "I hate the jets", hate speech is saying "Any person who supports the Jets I am going to have them lynched because they are a dirty explicits." Big difference between having a difference in opinion and actually threatening someone.
We will not accept posts from their personal Facebook pages. More so, posts of hate speech that "said submitted profile" are commenting on public pages. For example of a post that is submitted, please view Caitlyn Jenner's official Facebook page. There are hundreds of posts inciting harm towards her and other trans people. These people have their real social media profiles and in their bio already have listed their job and city. We would not take any additional steps of trying to find their addresses. Also once we make our database public, you would have to have a persons name to search. You cannot just type in a topic such as "racist posts". And once these profiles are submitted they will be deleted after 365 days if there aren't any additional submissions. We are staying away from posts from places like 4chan and twitter, simply because there are more fake profiles. I hope I answered some of your concerns. Again we are in beta stages so any constructive criticism will be helpful. We also do not allowing commenting because we do not want people trolling trolls.
Newguy 2 days ago
Brittany,
Thank you for clarifying. I guess I'm still confused.
(One thing you might consider is showing this campaign page to a friend or family member who doesn't already know all about it. Then ask them to summarize or explain what the database is/does. I suspect that none would be able to explain it)
The database is for publishing hate speech... Found where? Or once we have hate speech by person XYZ, we can search "XYZ" to find more hate speech by them?
What sites are you crawling, if not twitter and FB?
What's the point of collecting this data? Isn't one piece of hate speech by each author sufficient to classify them as a jerk?
Brittany 2 days ago
Hello newguy, that is a great suggestion and a great way to have an objective view. I will look into that within the next 48 hours.
To answer your question, the point of this is not to classify someone as jerk or put any type of labeling. It's simply, in their words only. We will not allow commenting or the ability to search for posts alone. For example, if you were an employer, you can do a search on social autopsy and see if a new hire has any entries submitted. Already now, many employers are now checking social media pages of interviewees and determine based on their presence whether or not they will hire the particular individual. We are aggregating information that is already readily available.
And to clarify we do have posts from public Facebook pages, because it is easier to identify if a profile is an actual person.
People must also submit URLS and have a screenshot that shows a post in its entirety, just so people cannot antagonize someone into saying something abusive, just to submit them to social autopsy.
Thank you for asking this question politely and being considerate. I understand how this may appear to infringe on people's first amendment rights or can cause bullying, but I assure you we are taking our time to take all precautions necessary.
Also if you have any suggestions please feel free to send. We are in beta stages and are taking this very seriously and do not want this to be used as a tool to hurt others.
Deborah Schumacher 2 days ago
"I just want to stress we are only publishing hate speech as defined by the law"
Which laws? The Internet is a global commodity and Hate Laws vary by country. Look at these Europen differences for a start. http://www.legal-project.org/issues/european-hate-speech-laws I have to admit, having my personal comments linked my employer is troublesome, even if you have to interpert that what I've said is "hateful language". Screenshots can be doctored, tweets can be deleted, facebook posts removed.
Ste Prescott 1 day ago
They want to build a website but can't keep their own blog site up? http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/http://www.degree180.com Also, the only benefit of this site is that someone who is being bullied might be able to take a name to the police. It is most likely going to cause people to loose their job over expressing opinions. Yes Internet is full of trolls but, welcome to the Internet.
Ste Prescott 1 day ago
Furthermore, how are you planning on linking fake accounts to real people? What happens if you wrongly link a person to a fake account? Like trolls, the stupid are everywhere and people believe everything they see on the Internet. So people could see your site linking a person to a comment wrongly and then believing it without questioning.
Otaku Kani about 17 hours ago
Thank goodness this campaign was suspended as it just totally reeked of hanging 6 pointed stars on people, their homes and businesses and sending them off to concentration camps. Throughout history, there have been those who have boasted of being "patriots", much like these women in this campaign claim, and believed that they were also serving their countries best interest. Only to become some of the biggest tyrants and dictators this world has ever known. I would find it difficult to believe that this group of women creators have never sat among themselves and made catty comments of those around themselves for their shoes or style of dress. Or shunned somebody for their looks or because they "didn't fit in" to their idea of social normalcy. Perhaps these creators need to focus on what is wrong with their need to place people into defined categories that would punish and shun others from acceptance... the same role that their suggested offenders do when they use the internet in the actions to bully or embarass others. Well, at least Kickstarter has stopped this small group of cyber bullies from committing hurt and pain to others, and punishing the alleged businesses of those offenders without a trial.
So how could employers search their database? I thought from their FAQ (unable to view it anymore as their site is down) said that you could not search by a person's name, only the category of posts.
2016/04/16 05:28:37
Subject: Re:"Social Autopsy" anti cyber-bullying campaign creates Orwellian cyber-bullying nightmare
Since they have no way of vetting that the statements attributed to the accounts in the profile actually belong the the people the reporters claim, they're almost certainly to be publicly publishing false statements damaging to people's reputations. If only there was some kind of word to describe such a thing. Oh well even if there was I'm sure it wouldn't be a crime or anything.
So how could employers search their database? I thought from their FAQ (unable to view it anymore as their site is down) said that you could not search by a person's name, only the category of posts.
If I'm an employer I know the name of all my employees. I go to the site run an automated search for all my employee's names.
The real danger isn't from that the though. The real danger is from my earlier example.
I don't like that donkey-cave Jim Brewer, who is always cramping my style. I create a twitter account
@TheRealJimBrewer.
@TheRealJimBrewer proceeds to make lots of racist, and homophobic statements. Maybe even tell a few stories about times "Jim Brewer" got away with being racist work. Maybe @TheRealJimBrewer makes a few threatening sounding posts.
Then I, being the concerned citizen I am. Flag the @TheRealJimBrewer as belonging to the Jim Brewer I don't like. Then I forward link to the database to his boss, family and anyone with a grudge against him.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/16 05:35:07
2016/04/16 05:29:52
Subject: Re:"Social Autopsy" anti cyber-bullying campaign creates Orwellian cyber-bullying nightmare
Chongara wrote: Since they have no way of vetting that the statements attributed to the accounts in the profile actually belong the the people the reporters claim, they're almost certainly to be publicly publishing false statements damaging to people's reputations. If only there was some kind of word to describe such a thing. Oh well even if there was I'm sure it wouldn't be a crime or anything.
Libel laws are notoriously difficult to prosecute though...
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/04/16 05:33:01
Subject: "Social Autopsy" anti cyber-bullying campaign creates Orwellian cyber-bullying nightmare
The ones who think they are for justice don't care as long as the "bad" guy gets it. The thing is if someone says something you don't like online Block them and if it's really bad walk away. I really wonder how the young adults will hold up once gak hits the fan.
2000 6000 with Reaver Titan guard 2k
2500 (imperial force)
2500 (trimming down in 8th)
TS 30k at 5k points
Yes I have a problem
2016/04/16 05:36:03
Subject: "Social Autopsy" anti cyber-bullying campaign creates Orwellian cyber-bullying nightmare
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Thats a remarkably naive and complacent attitude. If a company's public reputation has been dragged through the mud by their association with somebody who's been wrongly linked to this database, they're not going to care if the victim is later proven innocent. The damage is already done, all they'll care about is damage control and divesting themselves of that association ASAP. Just look
But how exactly is someone going to be wrongly linked to the database? For it to become more than just some random person posting pictures of conversations while everyone ignores them the operators would need to establish their credibility. For example, by forcing submissions to be in the form of a link to the offensive post and then having the database itself pull the quotes out. A database that lets random people submit screenshots of a supposed conversation will have zero credibility because it's so easy to create fake ones.
Ok, since you want to be rude and do it that way, we'll go with the top definition in the google search results:
any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime. adjective. 3. done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures: vigilante justice.
There is no violence, so that definition is clearly out. And it isn't really taking the law into one's own hands, since the database is an attempt to express an unfavorable opinion of legal behavior, not to enforce existing laws.
I'm sorry, is that supposed to be an actual argument? Cyber bullying and trolling is a crime in many countries, not to mention against the Terms of use of social media sites, and as such there are actual objective "proper channels" to pursue complaints through. Meaning the Police.
First of all, trolling and cyber bullying are not the same thing. Trolling is not illegal, nor should it be illegal. And bad behavior on the internet can be inappropriate while still falling short of illegal cyber bullying. Reporting legal but offensive behavior to the police is just wasting their time and yours.
Second, of course it's an actual argument. Why is the "proper channel" for dealing with inappropriate behavior reporting it to facebook/twitter/etc rather than public criticism of the person who posted it? Who decided this? You?
You're missing the fact that the website is not about KKK material, its about instances of trolling and hate messages sent directly to actual victims. Which is illegal and against the TOU of social media sites.
Nope. The OP clearly states that it includes offensive behavior in general, not just direct messages:
Absolutely not. Each and every submission goes through a process in which our team determines whether or not the user is just expressing an opinion or exercising harmful speech. There is a big difference between “F*** the Patriots. Go Giants! ” and “I hope Tom Brady dies, and his wife is raped”.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/04/16 05:46:55
Subject: "Social Autopsy" anti cyber-bullying campaign creates Orwellian cyber-bullying nightmare
First of all, trolling and cyber bullying are not the same thing. Trolling is not illegal, nor should it be illegal. And bad behavior on the internet can be inappropriate while still falling short of illegal cyber bullying. Reporting legal but offensive behavior to the police is just wasting their time and yours.
I don't know what the laws are in the USA, but trolling IS illegal in the UK under the Malicious Communications Act.
According to Internet sources, 'trolling' (also known as cyber bullying or Internet-bullying) is the anti-social act of causing personal conflict and controversy online. It has been named ‘trolling’ after the wicked troll creatures of children's tales. In the early days of the Internet, it was labelled as ‘Flaming’.I Hate You
Trolling is recognised as deliberately inflicting hatred, bigotry, racism, misogyny, or just simple bickering between others. People who partake in ‘trolling’ are referred to as ‘trolls’. They use any environment where they are allowed to make public comments, such as blog sites, social networks (like Facebook® and Twitter®), news sites, discussion forums, and game chat.
Unfortunately, trolling is a phenomenon that has swept across websites in recent years. Supporters argue it's about humour or freedom of speech. However, for some the ferocity and personal nature of the abuse causes great distress.
One of the first high-profile cases emerged in the US state of Missouri in 2006, when 13-year-old Megan Meier took her own life after being bullied online.
Internet experts say the key is not to "feed the troll" by offering them a response.
Is trolling an offence?
Persons engaging in Internet trolling are immediately committing an offence under the Malicious Communications Act.Internet bullying
The difficulty arises when identifying offenders in Internet trolling, as these offences tend to be committed using made up ‘usernames’ or fake profiles.
The Malicious Communications Act states:
• Any person who sends a letter, electronic communication or article of any description to a person that conveys a message that is indecent or highly offensive, a threat or false information. If the reason for that communication was to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person, then the sender is guilty of an offence.
• This includes mobile phones and the Internet (any form of electronic communication).
• The offence occurs whether those targeted actually receive the message or not.
Second, of course it's an actual argument. Why is the "proper channel" for dealing with inappropriate behavior reporting it to facebook/twitter/etc rather than public criticism of the person who posted it? Who decided this? You?
No, the Law. How many times must I restate my answer until you accept that I'm not changing it? Whatever the "proper channels" are, online vigilantism are not one of them.
2016/04/16 05:47:34
Subject: "Social Autopsy" anti cyber-bullying campaign creates Orwellian cyber-bullying nightmare
Chongara wrote: The real danger isn't from that the though. The real danger is from my earlier example.
I don't like that donkey-cave Jim Brewer, who is always cramping my style. I create a twitter account
@TheRealJimBrewer.
@TheRealJimBrewer proceeds to make lots of racist, and homophobic statements. Maybe even tell a few stories about times "Jim Brewer" got away with being racist work. Maybe @TheRealJimBrewer makes a few threatening sounding posts.
Then I, being the concerned citizen I am. Flag the @TheRealJimBrewer as belonging to the Jim Brewer I don't like. Then I forward link to the database to his boss, family and anyone with a grudge against him.
Which then becomes a question of how credible the fake account is when the real person says "this is a troll account, I never posted that". I suspect that it's a lot harder than simply making a troll account to get someone fired or in serious family trouble.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I don't know what the laws are in the USA, but trolling IS illegal in the UK under the Malicious Communications Act.
Ok, that's just an incoherent mess (referring to "trolling" as "bickering between people" and then declaring that "trolling" is illegal). Going by the standard definition of "posting something to get a reaction out of people" I sincerely hope that trolling is not illegal in the UK, or your country has some serious free speech issues.
No, the Law. How many times must I restate my answer until you accept that I'm not changing it? Whatever the "proper channels" are, online vigilantism are not one of them.
How many times must I restate the fact that many of the things that this database was supposed to involve are not illegal?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/16 06:00:36
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/04/16 06:13:10
Subject: Re:"Social Autopsy" anti cyber-bullying campaign creates Orwellian cyber-bullying nightmare
Chongara wrote: The real danger isn't from that the though. The real danger is from my earlier example.
I don't like that donkey-cave Jim Brewer, who is always cramping my style. I create a twitter account
@TheRealJimBrewer.
@TheRealJimBrewer proceeds to make lots of racist, and homophobic statements. Maybe even tell a few stories about times "Jim Brewer" got away with being racist work. Maybe @TheRealJimBrewer makes a few threatening sounding posts.
Then I, being the concerned citizen I am. Flag the @TheRealJimBrewer as belonging to the Jim Brewer I don't like. Then I forward link to the database to his boss, family and anyone with a grudge against him.
Which then becomes a question of how credible the fake account is when the real person says "this is a troll account, I never posted that". I suspect that it's a lot harder than simply making a troll account to get someone fired or in serious family trouble.
It's as credible as any of Jim Brewer's real accounts would be. What's publicly available is a screen name and some posts. There is no way to actually tell who is behind it and this website relies on unverified anonymous attributions from 3rd parties. A real account and a "Troll" account are literally indistinguishable under the system. And individual is credited with saying whatever any random person feels like claiming they said. So long as what they claim that person says is sufficiently offensive it goes in the database attached to their real name regardless of if they said it or not. For anyone who is inclined to believe the system fact & fiction are one and the same.
How many times must I restate the fact that many of the things that this database was supposed to involve are not illegal?
Bicycles aren't illegal. Baseball bats aren't illegal. Riding up to someone on your bike and then bludgeoning them with a baseball bat is illegal.
Similarly holding an opinion about what is or isn't offensive isn't illegal.
Repeating social media posts is not illegal.
Attributing things people said to them when they truthfully said so is not illegal.
However repeating and attributing social media posts to a real name and set of credentials with the intent of damaging their reputation when you have no way of verifying the truth of the connection is illegal.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/16 06:14:08
2016/04/16 06:26:47
Subject: Re:"Social Autopsy" anti cyber-bullying campaign creates Orwellian cyber-bullying nightmare
Chongara wrote: It's as credible as any of Jim Brewer's real accounts would be. What's publicly available is a screen name and some posts. There is no way to actually tell who is behind it and this website relies on unverified anonymous attributions from 3rd parties. A real account and a "Troll" account are literally indistinguishable under the system. And individual is credited with saying whatever any random person feels like claiming they said. So long as what they claim that person says is sufficiently offensive it goes in the database attached to their real name regardless of if they said it or not. For anyone who is inclined to believe the system fact & fiction are one and the same.
And then what happens when Jim Brewer says "here's my real account" and it doesn't have the same name as the troll? It's not like this kind of troll account is a new thing. If the database doesn't do any kind of verification to sort out troll accounts then it just won't have any credibility and nobody will pay any attention to it.
However repeating and attributing social media posts to a real name and set of credentials with the intent of damaging their reputation when you have no way of verifying the truth of the connection is illegal.
Err, I think you're missing the context of that. The things that I said are not illegal are the posts, not the act of showing them to everyone.
As for your argument, I think you're seriously overstating the case. It is entirely legal to publish those social media posts if you have a reasonable belief that they are accurate. You aren't required to have absolute proof of their authenticity first. The only way you're going to get into legal trouble is if the original post was not at all credible and a reasonable person should have known better, bringing it to the level of a reckless disregard for the truth rather than a failure to establish absolute 100% confidence.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/04/16 06:30:04
Subject: "Social Autopsy" anti cyber-bullying campaign creates Orwellian cyber-bullying nightmare
The site has launched, BUT it looks like the server is down and a yahoo search has it number 4 on the list and google has news on it, but not the actual site.
5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
2016/04/16 07:02:15
Subject: Re:"Social Autopsy" anti cyber-bullying campaign creates Orwellian cyber-bullying nightmare
Chongara wrote: It's as credible as any of Jim Brewer's real accounts would be. What's publicly available is a screen name and some posts. There is no way to actually tell who is behind it and this website relies on unverified anonymous attributions from 3rd parties. A real account and a "Troll" account are literally indistinguishable under the system. And individual is credited with saying whatever any random person feels like claiming they said. So long as what they claim that person says is sufficiently offensive it goes in the database attached to their real name regardless of if they said it or not. For anyone who is inclined to believe the system fact & fiction are one and the same.
And then what happens when Jim Brewer says "here's my real account" and it doesn't have the same name as the troll? It's not like this kind of troll account is a new thing.
Suppose Jim Brewer really is @TheRealJimBrewer and he claims "I don't have a twitter account" or "Here's my real account" <Some innocuous 2nd account> that one doesn't belong to me". Again a "Real" and "Troll" account are indistinguishable.
If the database doesn't do any kind of verification to sort out troll accounts then it just won't have any credibility and nobody will pay any attention to it.
The database has no means to do verification. It will still have the ability to do as much damage as any other unverified source of information will. People don't demand evidence to believe something, they only need hear those things in a loud and emotionally compelling enough voice. An internet database like this is certainly loud enough, and the narrative it puts forward of hunting down abusive bullies is emotionally compelling. They need only hit the mark once or twice by sheer luck to have example they can point to tons of misplaced credibility.
As for your argument, I think you're seriously overstating the case. It is entirely legal to publish those social media posts if you have a reasonable belief that they are accurate. You aren't required to have absolute proof of their authenticity first. The only way you're going to get into legal trouble is if the original post was not at all credible and a reasonable person should have known better, bringing it to the level of a reckless disregard for the truth rather than a failure to establish absolute 100% confidence.
"An anonymous third party claimed this without showing any evidence" is no basis for a reasonable belief. Even conceding the point that if playing the part of the absolute fool can absolve them of legal responsibility, can we at least agree that it's unethical and shady as hell? This thing is far more readily usable as tool for bullies, liars and trolls than it is for doing any sort of good.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/16 07:02:46
2016/04/16 07:26:44
Subject: Re:"Social Autopsy" anti cyber-bullying campaign creates Orwellian cyber-bullying nightmare
Chongara wrote: Suppose Jim Brewer really is @TheRealJimBrewer and he claims "I don't have a twitter account" or "Here's my real account" <Some innocuous 2nd account> that one doesn't belong to me". Again a "Real" and "Troll" account are indistinguishable.
Only if you don't look at things like posting history. I suppose it's theoretically possible that a troll could operate a fake account for months/years posting apparently-legitimate things, persuade the real person's friends to friend the troll on facebook, etc, but how plausible is that scenario? I seriously doubt that most trolls have the attention span to do something like that.
The database has no means to do verification. It will still have the ability to do as much damage as any other unverified source of information will. People don't demand evidence to believe something, they only need hear those things in a loud and emotionally compelling enough voice. An internet database like this is certainly loud enough, and the narrative it puts forward of hunting down abusive bullies is emotionally compelling. They need only hit the mark once or twice by sheer luck to have example they can point to tons of misplaced credibility.
And this is where I have to disagree. Posting accusations isn't going to get you very far if the accusation isn't credible and you have a well-established reputation for having a poor signal to noise ratio. Putting a bunch of low-credibility stuff into a database doesn't add any credibility, so all you have is the exact same situation you have now. The only way the database convinces anyone that wouldn't be convinced by some random person saying "look at this screenshot of twitter abuse" is if the database does establish some means of verification and a record of using it effectively, such that people have a reasonable belief that something posted there is likely to be legitimate.
"An anonymous third party claimed this without showing any evidence" is no basis for a reasonable belief. Even conceding the point that if playing the part of the absolute fool can absolve them of legal responsibility, can we at least agree that it's unethical and shady as hell? This thing is far more readily usable as tool for bullies, liars and trolls than it is for doing any sort of good.
It wouldn't be without evidence, it would be with screenshots/links to posts/etc. Sure, you can claim that it could be fake, but by that standard pretty much nothing on the internet is reliable.
And I'm not disputing that it seems kind of shady, I'm just pointing out that some of the arguments against it are really bad. It isn't a privacy violation, and it probably isn't going to be all that vulnerable to abuse.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/04/16 10:47:11
Subject: "Social Autopsy" anti cyber-bullying campaign creates Orwellian cyber-bullying nightmare
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm pretty sure it is very illegal to do stuff like that. Lieing to the police like that is not looked upon kindly.
Illegal but difficult to stop. How do you track down an anonymous caller?
You stop it by not treating an anonymous tip as sufficient evidence to kick in someone's door and threaten him at gunpoint. Any idiot can make a report to the police, and while that report should be investigated, it's dangerously stupid to act as if the alleged perpetrator is guilty based on nothing but the word of some random donkey-cave.
Peregrine wrote: Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with this. Social media posts are public by definition. If you don't want your employer to see you posting hate speech then don't post hate speech.
Two wrongs don't make a right and if you don't see how badly this can turn out you have been living under a rock for 3 years. We have already seen how this doxing for "good" can be used and abused.
2000 6000 with Reaver Titan guard 2k
2500 (imperial force)
2500 (trimming down in 8th)
TS 30k at 5k points
Yes I have a problem
2016/04/16 12:12:36
Subject: "Social Autopsy" anti cyber-bullying campaign creates Orwellian cyber-bullying nightmare
I take that to mean you disagree with my statement, in other words, you believe you have a moral and legal obligation to protect the privacy of people who send you malicious or threatening letters and emails.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm pretty sure it is very illegal to do stuff like that. Lieing to the police like that is not looked upon kindly.
Illegal but difficult to stop. How do you track down an anonymous caller?
You stop it by not treating an anonymous tip as sufficient evidence to kick in someone's door and threaten him at gunpoint. Any idiot can make a report to the police, and while that report should be investigated, it's dangerously stupid to act as if the alleged perpetrator is guilty based on nothing but the word of some random donkey-cave.[/url]
Thing is they use life or death calls so the cops have to treat it as its real i.e. going to kill someone or planning to go on a killing spree. If the cops don't act and it happens the cops are blamed for not stopping it. You can also fake a phone number on caller ID with little work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I take that to mean you disagree with my statement, in other words, you believe you have a moral and legal obligation to protect the privacy of people who send you malicious or threatening letters and emails.
If you do it with intent to harm you are no better than them. I love how you ignore my points
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/16 12:18:52
2000 6000 with Reaver Titan guard 2k
2500 (imperial force)
2500 (trimming down in 8th)
TS 30k at 5k points
Yes I have a problem
2016/04/16 12:21:39
Subject: "Social Autopsy" anti cyber-bullying campaign creates Orwellian cyber-bullying nightmare
AlexHolker wrote: You stop it by not treating an anonymous tip as sufficient evidence to kick in someone's door and threaten him at gunpoint. Any idiot can make a report to the police, and while that report should be investigated, it's dangerously stupid to act as if the alleged perpetrator is guilty based on nothing but the word of some random donkey-cave.
Thing is they use life or death calls so the cops have to treat it as its real i.e. going to kill someone or planning to go on a killing spree. If the cops don't act and it happens the cops are blamed for not stopping it. You can also fake a phone number on caller ID with little work.
I didn't say don't act, I said don't break into somebody's house, guns drawn, just because you got an anonymous phone call saying you should. People die in no-knock entries, and they should not be used lightly.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
2016/04/16 13:17:11
Subject: Re:"Social Autopsy" anti cyber-bullying campaign creates Orwellian cyber-bullying nightmare
Peregrine wrote: And this is where I have to disagree. Posting accusations isn't going to get you very far if the accusation isn't credible and you have a well-established reputation for having a poor signal to noise ratio. Putting a bunch of low-credibility stuff into a database doesn't add any credibility, so all you have is the exact same situation you have now. The only way the database convinces anyone that wouldn't be convinced by some random person saying "look at this screenshot of twitter abuse" is if the database does establish some means of verification and a record of using it effectively, such that people have a reasonable belief that something posted there is likely to be legitimate.
That isn't how people's filters work. Some random dude says something and that naturally triggers enough skepticism that the vast majority of people will brush it off. You take that same accusation give it zero additional evidence, wrap it in a nice-looking website with a .org address, inside a formal looking database entry on an individual and an "about us" section with a well-worded message about how they're honest people fighting the good fight against the world's ills and far more people will take it seriously. Maybe not a majority, but at least a large minority.
It's exactly why those scams with with "Certified Letter: Do not discard" or "Important: Immediate Action Needed" written in red on the front get so many people. The simple trappings of legitimacy are interchangeable with actual legitimacy for those unwilling, unprepared or simply poor at being skeptical about them. Those same people wouldn't fall for a plain envelope with a letter inside "You owe me money. Please send check". A screenshot and a claim is like the "Send me money" letter, this website is the gussied up "Important: Immediate Action Needed" scam.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/04/16 14:34:26
2016/04/16 19:34:36
Subject: "Social Autopsy" anti cyber-bullying campaign creates Orwellian cyber-bullying nightmare
I like this idea, dont say things you cant stand behind. Maybe dont be a jerk and you do not have a problem..
But I also have no knternet presence, no photos no sin no facebook twoter youtube account nothing. Even my email is named john doe.
I got an idea tho hotmail, gmail facebook ect should have a little report button. If the comment sent is indeed hateful or rude. It is posted on the senders main page for a month. That way everyone can see who they really are.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/16 19:37:39
I need to go to work every day.
Millions of people on welfare depend on me.
2016/04/16 19:45:05
Subject: "Social Autopsy" anti cyber-bullying campaign creates Orwellian cyber-bullying nightmare
skyth wrote: A lot of cyber bullying happens because there are no real consequences for the bully. How do we get real consequences for bullies without stepping on people's rights?
Yeah, that's the kicker.
Desubot wrote: Really should start with the whole teach children that people online saying mean things means nothing.
What about when people saying things online succeeds in pressuring your company to fire you or includes threats on your safety (that, yes, might just be mean people, but there are more than a few cases of it turning into real world aggression), or just plain old constant attack?
People don't have the right to privacy in order to to enable them to bully people and prevent them finding recourse against because of the right to privacy.
The key point is how the victim finds recourse. Ideally it should be done by accountable authorities like the law (justice system, etc) and the companies that run and profit from the internet and social media.
However if this cannot be arranged officially a bully is rather silly to expect their victims not to find some other way of fighting back.
The key point is that the identity of the bully is not always their actual identity. Plenty of people go under screen or assumed names, some even taking on the names or identities of other, real people.
You have to always investigate and confirm the identity of the person rather than just posting their details publically along with a list of "crimes"...
Kilkrazy wrote: People don't have the right to privacy in order to to enable them to bully people and prevent them finding recourse against because of the right to privacy.
The key point is how the victim finds recourse. Ideally it should be done by accountable authorities like the law (justice system, etc) and the companies that run and profit from the internet and social media.
However if this cannot be arranged officially a bully is rather silly to expect their victims not to find some other way of fighting back.
I agree with your points that the rights to privacy are not meant to protect internet bullying and hate crimes. However this group's solution is not the optimal answer as there is too much potential for innocent people to get hurt. It is difficult to prove people's identities on the internet and this system can be abused to target people and mess up their personal lives. It can be difficult to prove that a facebook, twitter, myspace, etc. account is not yours if you do not already have an account on that site. If they were to create a twitter account @theSignless and start posting hate speech, I cannot prove that this is not me as I do not have an account. My attempts to make the account @realtheSignless would probably be discarded as an attempt to hide my record because I am trying to claim that this just created account is more legitimate than one that could have been running for months.
Another problem that this service is going to have is that a lot of people do not use their real names or share relevant information about themselves. A lot of hate speech is going to get filed under "unkown person #XXX, twitter username: Troll123" with no way of finding if they have any alternate accounts. Too many of the real trolls are going to get away with this, especially once it gets started and people figure out the tricks to avoid appearing on their systems.
Perhaps the solution should be to encourage governments to expand laws regarding what they can police on the internet and increase moderation of social media sites. Have an international consensus on what constitutes hate speech so that it can be applied to the internet, then encourage or requite social media sites to include mods that can suspend or ban people that do not follow the rules and in cases when the hate speech violates the law, they report it to local law enforcement. People should realise that the internet is not some lawless place where they can do what want, but the way to do that is to impose the rule of law upon it, not try and publicly shame people on shifty evidence.
Still waiting for Godot.
2016/04/17 04:52:19
Subject: "Social Autopsy" anti cyber-bullying campaign creates Orwellian cyber-bullying nightmare
A better method would be to enact tort law that makes service providers liable if they do nothing to act on reports of harassment and abuse. Nothing gets a corporate body off its lazy butt faster than a winding series of expensive settlements.
2000 
6000 with Reaver Titan 
guard 2k
2500 (imperial force)
2500 (trimming down in 8th)
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
