http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2015/04/28/gamergate/
this is a well known example of online harassment. not going to discuss that crapstain of a human being. he is simply a sociopath who thankfully is too much of a spineless worm to become a serial killer (gotta see the silver lining in everything)
i want to know what laws can we implement (and enforce) to make sure online harassment is treated no differently than any kind of harassment. what laws are already implemented around the world. it seems many times police officers and judges have their hands tied to do anything about this. (the judge in the link did something, but because that worm is still free, it seems it wasn't enough)
"Wu [another victim of gamergate] claims she loses at least a day each week “explaining the Internet” to the police, saying that she’s had to convince numerous officers that Twitter isn’t “just for jokes,” but is in fact her primary means of marketing her business"
"When Quinn has spoken to police, she says she’s had to print out the threats and explain what a user name is. She regularly hears suggestions that she simply stay offline. “In 2015, that’s like saying, ‘Oh, there’s an angry mob camped outside on your sidewalk, just don’t ever go outside again,’” she says. Quinn also wants to change the vocabulary we use to describe online abuse. “These aren’t trolls,” she says. “And it’s not online bullying. Bullying is something that gets you a pink slip in high school. These are people stalking, sending death threats, trying to get the cops to raid homes. These are criminals.”
I would think that laws for any other kind of harassment would be applicable. There might be some increased difficulty demonstrating who is doing the harassment. However, I do think that in the case of the OP, death threats could be tracked down and prosecuted. I certainly think death threats should be treated as a very serious crime and that most countries to have laws to that effect regardless of the medium used.
At the same time, I think that people who receive a lot of hatemail should consider getting software that automatically filters it out. I am in no way justifying the hatemail, merely saying that reading it doesn't help.
It wouldn't work on twitter, but I have heard and excellent suggestion for dealing with spam. We could have a system whereby there is a non-zero cost attached to all email. When a user receives and email they state whether they accept it or reject it. If they accept it, the cost is refunded. If they reject it, the sender has had to pay. This would stop spam overnight and might even cut down on hate mail. You would think twice about sending out death threats if you had to pay for them.
Originally posted by twhiteheadthere are many who rely on emails from strangers to conduct business. many times they have to accept it.
It wouldn't work on twitter, but I have heard and excellent suggestion for dealing with spam. We could have a system whereby there is a non-zero cost attached to all email. When a user receives and email they state whether they accept it or reject it. If they accept it, the cost is refunded. If they reject it, the sender has had to pay. This would stop sp ...[text shortened]... on hate mail. You would think twice about sending out death threats if you had to pay for them.
it's a nice idea though, maybe it could be polished.
Originally posted by twhiteheadi think the answer should be more along the lines of making sure people who have not subscribed to a particular conversation don't see it. in this case banning twitter accounts would be an unnecessary violation of freedom of speech
Twitter should possibly also be encouraged to block tweets that constitute death threats and cancel accounts of those that make them. One could argue that Twitter is aiding and abetting. I also do not think death threats count as free speech.
Originally posted by ZahlanziI never said email from strangers would be blocked. I said that if you receive such an email and decide it is not something you wanted to receive, you would click 'reject' and it would essentially charge the sender a small fee. Once you get to know someone, you can dispense with all this, so it would only apply to people you have not previously accepted mail from.
there are many who rely on emails from strangers to conduct business. many times they have to accept it.
it's a nice idea though, maybe it could be polished.
I am also not saying you would reject it before knowing the contents.
I get a lot of legitimate emails from strangers and a lot of spam. I would like to have the option to punish the spammers.
The same could be applied to say comments on YouTube videos. A channel owner could say what are acceptable comments and punish anyone who doesn't abide by the rules. That way we would spend less time having to read through comments and deleting them while the commenter's can just keep on doing it at no cost to themselves.
Imagine that RHP charged a small fee every time a post was deleted by a moderator. Don't you think the moderators work would be reduced? Already RHP does implement some amount of punishment for undesirable behaviour and can suspend or ban people.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIs it possible we have too soon, too fast become too dependent on the internet and online communications and ads? I never dreamed that we'd see international communications on home computers, but here it is. The freedom of expression is great, but abuse of freedoms often has led to their loss altogether.
I would think that laws for any other kind of harassment would be applicable. There might be some increased difficulty demonstrating who is doing the harassment. However, I do think that in the case of the OP, death threats could be tracked down and prosecuted. I certainly think death threats should be treated as a very serious crime and that most countri ...[text shortened]... ters it out. I am in no way justifying the hatemail, merely saying that reading it doesn't help.
Originally posted by twhitehead"I never said email from strangers would be blocked.I said that if you receive such an email and decide it is not something you wanted to receive"
I never said email from strangers would be blocked. I said that if you receive such an email and decide it is not something you wanted to receive, you would click 'reject' and it would essentially charge the sender a small fee. Once you get to know someone, you can dispense with all this, so it would only apply to people you have not previously accepted m ...[text shortened]... oes implement some amount of punishment for undesirable behaviour and can suspend or ban people.
so you have to read it first? so basically you get the hate, have your day ruined then decide if the aswipe who sent it should pay a minor fee? (it can't be major, nobody would block large sums of money for every email they sent, not knowing when the recipient would get around to return the money).
who gets to pay all those transaction fees?
also do you think that those human stains that send death and rape threats won't happily pay 10 dollars just to have the satisfaction the target of their malice got to feel pain or fear or humiliation?
your idea just gets rid of spammers. not these maggots.
Originally posted by ZahlanziThere does seem to be a generalised problem with politicians and a variety of other authority figures not knowing anything about technology.
"Wu [another victim of gamergate] claims she loses at least a day each week “explaining the Internet” to the police, saying that she’s had to convince numerous officers that Twitter isn’t “just for jokes,” but is in fact her primary means of marketing her business"
"When Quinn has spoken to police, she says she’s had to print out the threats and explai ...[text shortened]... ple stalking, sending death threats, trying to get the cops to raid homes. These are criminals.”
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt may seem that politicians and public figures are out of touch, but the IT world has grown so fast, that I am bamboozled by it. I was on line when the 2400 baud modem was the newest, fastest technology to be had.
There does seem to be a generalised problem with politicians and a variety of other authority figures not knowing anything about technology.
Those of us who continue to buy new computers, and keep up with technology, are a small minority, and there are many millions who simply don't have a clue about computers or the internet.
Originally posted by normbenign"It may seem that politicians and public figures are out of touch, but the IT world has grown so fast, that I am bamboozled by it. "
It may seem that politicians and public figures are out of touch, but the IT world has grown so fast, that I am bamboozled by it. I was on line when the 2400 baud modem was the newest, fastest technology to be had.
Those of us who continue to buy new computers, and keep up with technology, are a small minority, and there are many millions who simply don't have a clue about computers or the internet.
that's why you shouldn't have fossils (republican fossils) on science committees. people that think that we can't possibly mess up the planet because god made it and how can we fuk up something god made. or fossils that think a snowball brought to the senate floor is proof that global warming is false. or fossils that get scared when scientists ask to research stem cells even though it might cure a ton of diseases.
"there are many millions who simply don't have a clue about computers or the internet."
if you are unable to keep up, move out of the way. or do you support having surgeons that don't wash their hands and alchemists?
- Joined
- 21 Oct 15
- Moves
- 44092
Unfortunately, I very much doubt they can get rid of online bullies. It's almost impossible/unpractical. Man hours/money, and depending on the level you would want to do it - it will remove freedom of speech.
If bullies still work in schools then I very much doubt they can overcome online bullies!?