Tracking and revealing the trolls....ok or not?

While I do find "trolls" unnecessary, I do not care of the implications of text, furthermore not 'respecting' the dead, I have no obligation as a thiest, or to the supernatural.

My grandmother recently passed away, yet if the "trolls" were to suggest that her corpse "rot in piss", this causation is 'empty'.

However, I do most certainly dislike a reporter, that holds the masses, legislation, and money as normative authority.

They are individuals I would most certainly challenge, or even go to war against.

I personally despise them, though I do believe in 'free will', it is dominance convuluted by cultural phenomena in this case.

I'm obviously not a book smart as you, I tend to speak plainly. Regardless, if I take what you meant here correctly, it's only going to get worse. Cultural phenomena like this is going anywhere any time soon. Free will, may or may not be stymied, but assholes like this are on notice, I do believe. I won't go out of my way to out anyone, but others might. Piss off the wrong people and your name could be all over twitter.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but this sort of thing is becoming more and more common. Recently, a friend, of a friend, of a friend was in a hit and run. She posted it on her facebook, all the details, the baby on board stickers, the baby seat ending in the front seat, the baby wasn't hurt, what kind of a guy would do this... it went viral, ended up on the news, the guy turned himself in, the heat was too much.
My point is, regardless if it's the news or what have you, times they are a changing.. Beware.

How is that visible??
With the only exception of that discolored corrugated metal security door or shield,
I was not able to see evidence of decay.

I surmise that u saw SOMETHING bad,
but I 've not been able to ascertain what it was.

You don't know what to look for, I've got this Zen thing going on, a psychic awareness of postcode prejudice. I'm thinking of starting a cult, just send me five 'undred nicker an I'll send ya a badge.

I don 't have any 'undred nickers,
let alone 5 of them. (What r thay, anyway ?)





David

See how your silly spelling can lead one astray? Nickers means underpants, specifically a young ladies underpants. Nicker (singular) means one pound sterling. Do it . . . send Izzy the money, you can trust him.

Listen to Setanta. He's spot on this time.

I think anonymity and privacy is an important part of the internet (see Iran right now, they just turned off the https protocol this weekend (again) to help stifle dissent and block proxies and TOR) and don't think that it should be systemically* compromised. Things like the "Arab Spring" and whistle-blowing often depend on it even though the anonymity engenders a lot of douchebaggery and vile behavior.

However, the question of whether the internet should remain anonymous is really separate from cases like this, where they likely did not compromise any fundamental expectation for privacy on the internet to out him and likely (I did not watch the whole video so dont't know how they did it here) just used the information he made public to do so. While I see nothing wrong with that inherently most of the time this happens it's not nearly as polite and often involves offline harassment (under the cover of their own anonymity, of course) that I just can't condone, and many communities online have to make rules against such outings. I've seen plenty of internet witch hunts against online jerks that go way too far to hope to see more of this kind of thing.

* E.g. I don't support legislated reductions of anonymity or technological deployments to undermine internet anonymity and I contribute to attempts to increase the availability of anonymity for people who really need it (e.g. dissidents in China and Iran). I have also opposed every legal request for user information I have received because in all such cases it was a feckless request that did not come close to my standards for a reasonable violation of internet privacy.

Good Lord, how much oxygen is going to be wasted on these repititive threads about trolls?

Let's stipulate that we all hate the assholes that dissrupt a thread because they can.

Let's stipulate that A2K members overuse "troll" and tend to fling it at people with whom they disagree.

Abuzz had true trolls, A2K doesn't.

No; I was making the point
that I don't have 5 of something.
I can 't write that in the singular.


Let us know when the silver arrives, Izzy.
Will u wait by the road, for the mailman ?

Didn't read the thread, did you? Didn't watch the OP's video, did you?

I know what you mean, and have a lot more respect for people who post under their real identity than those who use aliases. But I think that there is room on the internet for both ways. There are communities (e.g. Facebook tries, Google + tried too hard) that seek to elevate the discourse by disallowing such anonymity and I see nothing wrong with that, but at the same time I want there to be anonymous venues for free speech because some kinds of free speech requires it (see Iran dissident example).



I don't think it is an inherently bad thing, but in practice it usually just represents offline trolling itself and the internet mobs who do it usually do it anonymously so that they can do things like start phoning in death threats. They get it wrong (target the wrong person, become manipulated into harassing someone) far too easily too.

Here is an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwtaYCj_qwU

That is a video of a dad, who is not very tech-savvy, ranting against trolls who have been harrassing his daughter. It's over the top and he insults them but the response to it from the trolls was far more so, they started really harassing this family.

I've seen dozens and dozens of cases like that, where the internet gets their hands on someone's personal information and begins to harass them for their internet gaffe. In a way this adds to your point, because most of the time the internet mobs are using anonymity to go overboard on their retaliations, but there's really no good way to change this situation without breaking the internet (not just for sociological reasons but also for technical reasons, as the internet was designed to be largely stateless and federated and would not have blossomed like it did without that).

I hear you about the incessant a2k navel-gazing about its "trolls" (though I would not go so far as to say a2k doesn't have any trolling) but I think the context of this thread is much more general than that.

**** you.

Yes there is some trolling here, but nothing like we experienced on Abuzz.

That trolling killed Abuzz.

My experience here is that those who disagree with someone charge "Troll."

Look at the smartass comment from Set and the vulgar response from me.

Are either trolling?

The video in the originating post was about someone who hunted down a troll offline and the pros and cons of tracking and revealing trolls, their privacy vs accountability.

It was not about a specific forum.

And the argument about Catholic waivers is not about contraceptives.

Finn, you might want to do yourself a favor and spend a couple minutes watching the video.

No thanks.

Whether or not this thread is precisely about trolling in this forum, the pattern I've addressed is acurate.

I am not particularly impressed when it is only some random do-gooder who violates citizens privacy rather than Big Brother....the sin is the same either way. The internet was designed to be anonymous, there is here the expectation of privacy, almost any violation of that privacy is wrong no matter who does it.