Websites Will Be Forced To Identify Trolls

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Numbers33four
 


It doesn't matter if you are a troll, they will label you as one to come after you.

People need to wake up before the door closes.

Unlike Radio,tv, news papers the Internet snuck under the radar and it allowed people to vocally express counter opinions without being controlled or filtered. Freedom of speech is an extremely powerful thing that is often underestimated, Hence they are trying to get back control.




posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


but his legacy lives on stronger than ever.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Zecharia
 


yeah, I make joke to illustrate the definition of troll, as has been said upthread, is so subjective



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Signals
R.I.P. GLP....



- I was thinking the same thing, not to mention Yahoo. Those are some of the goofiest, most stupid comments anywhere.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Even among our membership at ATS people call someone a troll if they simply disagree with their stance on a subject. This would never work because the term is so subjective. If they want to make parameters or criteria for "trolling" I guess that may work, but most trolling is for the lulz and not nefarious. Different strokes for different folks. They should be much more worried about the real crimes onthe internet that they still do not have a handle on before going after trolls. Like states rights, it should be board owners responsibilities to handle trolls effectively and not a govt entity.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
And also, this isn't something new. There was a thread a few months ago about a UK bill which was essentially the same as this (trying to target "trolls"). I'm not sure if this is the same one or just a revised version.

Either way I've already read several stories about people in the UK being arrested and charged for posting something "distasteful" on Facebook. Example: Teen charged over Facebook post

If they want to do something they'll do it regardless of the law.
edit on 12-6-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
You people are paranoid. Must be the american in you. Besides, black people are smarter and faster and the Palestinians should find their own land than trying to steal it from israelis.

Islam is the best religion in the world. And women belong in the kitchen.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by Numbers33four
"First they came for the [trolls] and I did not speak out--Because I was not a [troll]..."
edit on 12-6-2012 by Numbers33four because: (no reason given)

It's not even that simple. The definition of "troll" is very subjective... all you need to do is hurt someones feelings (intentionally or not) and they could easily label you a troll. Everyone has been a "troll" at some point on the internet. They can distort and warp "troll" to mean anything they want it to mean and target anyone who they want to target.


You don't even have to hurt someones feelings either, you could just spin a topic off topic intentionally.

Troll has gone from a relatively harmless term to describe mild trouble makers and jokers, mainly people who wind you up (or a WUM, wind up merchant, as they were known on the BBC forums) to being some sort of catch-all phrase for any jackass who does something bad towards someone else on the internet.

It's the media doing it. If you asked people what a troll was there would be a world of difference in the answers from people who browse the internet regularly and know the meaning of the word and have experienced trolling, and those who've never seen the internet. And those who haven't seen the internet probably only know trolls as psychopaths who sit around defacing online RIP pages and the like.

What's hilarious is that some of the media outlets waging this war on "trolls" are the biggest actual trolls of all. The Daily Mail make a living on trolling people, purposely misconstruing and presenting certain arguments with the primary goal being to upset, anger or outrage their readers. That is TEXTBOOK(Or Wikipedia page if you like lol) trolling.

These problems didn't exist a few years ago, now the internet is being painted as some dangerous place and the fascist governments(probably arrest me for saying that in 10 years) are here to save us



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Simples...

Don't post offensive stuff.. How hard is that???

But then again.. People have a tendency to get offended at any old thing.. So who defines what hate speech is against freedom of expression and opinion??

This will end badly methinks..



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Very misleading headline by Sky, seeing as it hasn't gone through yet.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by JailTales

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by Numbers33four
"First they came for the [trolls] and I did not speak out--Because I was not a [troll]..."
edit on 12-6-2012 by Numbers33four because: (no reason given)


You don't even have to hurt someones feelings either, you could just spin a topic off topic intentionally.


Are you experienced in hurting peoples feelings and why?


being some sort of catch-all phrase for any jackass who does something bad towards someone else on the internet.

Use your big boy words.



What's hilarious is that some of the media outlets waging this war on "trolls" are the biggest actual trolls of all. The Daily Mail make a living on trolling people, purposely misconstruing and presenting certain arguments with the primary goal being to upset, anger or outrage their readers. That is TEXTBOOK(Or Wikipedia page if you like lol) trolling.

Your making things up now. Show me once where Fox news lied?


Is this trolling?
edit on 12-6-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-6-2012 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by JailTales
 


Fair do's but have you legs? say it and run away


Once I worked in a pub and a group of guys came in (combat 18) and they started shouting at this guy and his girlfriend (who was black) I told them all to get out and they refused saying "are you going to throw us out" I said no but I know something that will, I went around back and brought out Benson (my landlords 14 stone rottweiler) never seen a bunch of guys piss emselves and run out of a place so quick lol.


Ha I can imagine. It's not really an issue of fear, although of course I'm human and can fear for my health and the well being of my family like anybody else, really though I think it's just common sense.

The internet does give you anonymity and take away the human factor somewhat, and people can be abusive at times because of it, i've been guilty of that myself plenty of times, especially in the morning


But there is also non abusive criticism and view point which remains offensive and could land you in serious trouble in the wrong presence, in the real world. Just look at the death threats some famous Atheists for example get against them. There just are some view points people hold that offend and deride other groups.

My worry is how this would get misused, I think that's the issue. Legally I don't think many people would be too worried, it's what the "victims" could do with the information.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by JailTales

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by Numbers33four
"First they came for the [trolls] and I did not speak out--Because I was not a [troll]..."
edit on 12-6-2012 by Numbers33four because: (no reason given)


You don't even have to hurt someones feelings either, you could just spin a topic off topic intentionally.


Are you experienced in hurting peoples feelings and why?


being some sort of catch-all phrase for any jackass who does something bad towards someone else on the internet.

Use your big boy words.



What's hilarious is that some of the media outlets waging this war on "trolls" are the biggest actual trolls of all. The Daily Mail make a living on trolling people, purposely misconstruing and presenting certain arguments with the primary goal being to upset, anger or outrage their readers. That is TEXTBOOK(Or Wikipedia page if you like lol) trolling.

Your making things up now. Show me once where Fox news lied?

I'm not sure either way. On one hand I was about to say it's non-productive, disruptive nonsense... On the other hand you've intentionally given a textbook illustration of harmless trolling, which is more than relevant to the thread and will help others grasp the often banality of trollin'
edit on 12-6-2012 by JailTales because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
What does it mean when a clone is controlling all the drones?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
this has nothing to do with petty bickering on websites.

this is to target very serious abuse of people on the internet. bullying too , i would imagine.

there have been some shocking cases over the last few years

an example would be people setting up facebooks sites for kids who have died and spend their time posting abuse on it. its some really messed up and sick stuff.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
edit on 12-6-2012 by lacrimaererum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by lacrimaererum
 


But if they made Ad Hominum illegal than all the Lawyers would be in jail.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by lacrimaererum
this has nothing to do with petty bickering on websites.

this is to target very serious abuse of people on the internet. bullying too , i would imagine.

there have been some shocking cases over the last few years

an example would be people setting up facebooks sites for kids who have died and spend their time posting abuse on it. its some really messed up and sick stuff.

www.dailymail.co.uk...
edit on 12-6-2012 by lacrimaererum because: (no reason given)


Would the answer then not be to demand Facebook act, or boycott their service?

Why do we have to acquiesce to legal authority, when we ourselves have the right to enact that authority ourselves through smart and concise action?

Or is it more that people are not willing to take any action that impacts them (i.e., boycotting a service they like because of policies they disagree with)?

if so, then the problem is that the people lack the spine to secure their own liberty, and are willing to cede liberty for safety. THAT is absolutely pathetic. An affront to God, and all the men and women who have died for liberty.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


I know that! I was talking about the Queen and how her ancestory was German... That was not recieved well on a British tabloid site. I have been called a troll for pointing out that "God" was not in the original Pledge of Alligence but inserted by Esinhower....

so, yes .. troll can mean many things

I didagree with this. I do however feel that if you make a living posting/commenting for the benefit or employers that you should have to display who you are commenting for.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   


Why do we have to acquiesce to legal authority, when we ourselves have the right to enact that authority ourselves through smart and concise action?


I think it is because people have been told how to act and what is ok to do for so long that they are subconsciously trained that they feel the need to ask permission to exercise their own rights and then demand that everyone else ask for permission to use the rights they already have.


reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 





top topics
 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join