If SF enforced passport pictures as avatar- Would you be in favour?

[danot 10]

I wasn't talking about insults, really, primarily about mood/tone. People get sucked into the informality offered by chat threads and don't realise that what they write gets 'flattened out' by the lack of body language, etc.

It does, but grammar and the correct usage of punctuation marks (and don't forget the smilies) usually give some indication of how they'd like you to interpret it.

 

Posted by aliceBB

However anyone who wants to remain anonymous just so they can harass, insult or abuse strangers with impunity is too inadequate for words.

Agreed.

[Cyclone 10]

Why do you have this preconceived notion that anyone who threatens to 'fill in' another user must be unstable?

 

In reality most people would threaten to chin somebody if they were being spoken to in the same manner as some post on here.

No they wouldn't, not unless they lack self control (which makes them unstable doesn't it?).

 

How many times have you seen one person being harassed by a collective group simply because freedom of expression allows it? How many times have you seen these groups ask a user- 'Why post on SF if you can't handle criticism? 'No one has the right to not be offended'!!

That would be after they post that they don't want to be criticised at a guess, or that you've offended them and that shouldn't be allowed.

 

Whether you realize it or not, the things we type on here isn't part of some artificial reality, it's actually real and will have some affect on the life we live outside of here. So if posters wish to avoid being "filled in", I'd strongly advise them to tame down the bravado, double then triple check what they've written and seriously think about the implications before they press submit.

 

'No one as the right to not deserve a slap"

More importantly, no one has the right to not be thrown in the big house for slapping someone.

If you can't manage to discuss or argue without resorting to threats of physical violence then you should probably be locked up to keep the rest of the population safe from you.

[Cyclone 10]

Anyway, the law on defamation is to be changed and website owners will be obliged to disclose to complainants the identity of their online defamers.

 

Web site owners can't do that of course, that would require the ISP to be involved.

[Cyclone 10]

Why should they? Online is public.

 

We have some privacy in public. If you discuss something in the pub with a stranger you aren't obliged to give them your name and address.

[Obelix 11]

What point is that? "That no one as the right to not deserve a slap"? How would that prove any point you made?

 

You seem to be championing the rights of certain users to exercise their freedom to bully and taunt someone to their hearts content without fear of retaliation outside of SF. Are you condoning the manner in which some posters treat other posters? i.e, do you consider it acceptable when certain users routinely group together and address someone with disdain? Are you condoning how certain users characteristically ridicule other users about their grammar, spelling, education, class, intelligence, beliefs etc? Are you condoning the popular notion that no one has the right to not be offended by their views and comments? Are you condoning those who routinely insult, disrespect, ridicule and mock anyone who's topic of discussion as been deemed by them to border the ridiculous? If so, would you be championing their right to do this if it was occurring outside of SF?

 

No I'm not. However with your diatribe above you are - from your cloak of anonymity - bullying harassing and taunting others. What gives you the right?

[Obelix 11]

Anyway, the law on defamation is to be changed and website owners will be obliged to disclose to complainants the identity of their online defamers.

 

How for example would you do that to someone posting via a TOR node who hasn't given correct details? I can't see many web fora going to the expense of confirming identity.

[danot 10]

No I'm not. However with your diatribe above you are - from your cloak of anonymity - bullying harassing and taunting others. What gives you the right?

 

What gives me the right to do what? Bully, harass and taunt??

 

I didn't realize asking you a perfectly reasonable questions constituted bullying, harassing and taunting, but never mind.

 

You seem to be of the opinion that because social networks allow users to express themselves freely, they should also be allowed to address each other in which ever manner they choose without having to worry about the implications of doing so or fearing any anger or resentment which might extend beyond the realms of the social network and for the life of me I don't understand why.

 

We've established earlier that you're opposed to users threatening physical violence towards each other and we've just established that you do not condone online bullying, harassing and taunting either. But what about outside of the social network?

 

If certain individuals were gathering together and addressing members of the public with disdain or bullying lone individuals or ridiculing them about their personal characteristics and attributes just because they have a right to express their views in public, would you be at all surprised if somebody gave them a slap or worse? personally, I wouldn't, which is why I'm having difficulty understanding what it is about social networks that make the situation any different.

[Forumosaurus 10]

from your cloak of anonymity - bullying harassing and taunting others. What gives you the right?

 

 

 

I think it's more acceptable to bully, harass and taunt others online than in real life.

 

Online I don't know you, you don't know me, no physical harm can ever come of it, you can escape by closing your browser.

 

In real life, non of those apply. Basically anybody who says bullying online is the same as bullying in real life is an idiot.

 

I'm starting to think that instead of a passport picture, they should test how thick your skin is before allowing people access to the interwebs.

[danot 10]

No they wouldn't, not unless they lack self control (which makes them unstable doesn't it?).

In the eye's of the law yes. But you know as well as I do that the law doesn't control our behavior, it's our emotions that do. And please don't tell me that you've never lost it with someone as I'd hate to have to call you a liar.

 

posted by Cyclone

That would be after they post that they don't want to be criticised at a guess, or that you've offended them and that shouldn't be allowed.

Not at all. My only point is that the key difference between ganging up on someone and/or ridiculing them on here and doing it outside of here is it's highly probable that you'll get chinned outside of here. And being unstable has nothing to do with it.

 

 

Posted by Cyclone

More importantly, no one has the right to not be thrown in the big house for slapping someone.

But you wouldn't be saying that about a group who were conducting themselves in such a way in public. This opinion seems to only apply to social network users. Why is that?

 

 

posted by Cyclone

If you can't manage to discuss or argue without resorting to threats of physical violence then you should probably be locked up to keep the rest of the population safe from you.

Likewise. If you can't manage to comment on something without resorting to bullying and ridiculing you should probably be locked up to protect yourself from the population.

[Cyclone 10]

You can call me a liar if you like, I won't feel the need to punch you. It's difficult for me to prove you wrong as I'd have to prove a negative, but since I've been an adult I've found that not punching people because of something they've said is actually quite easy.

 

Maybe in the circles you live in physical violence is the norm, it certainly isn't amongst anyone I know or might speak to (well, that's outside the martials classes I attend, where it obviously is the norm, but not as a response to a disagreement).

 

What do you mean I wouldn't be saying that. You can't virtually slap someone, so I was referring to the real world, not the virtual one. You can virtually threaten to slap someone and if it's serious that should be dealt with in the same way as it would in the real world.

 

I think you've got it all backwards, the law allows us to ridicule someone, and it already protects us from that person responding with violence. That's the way the world already works.

[danot 10]

I think it's more acceptable to bully, harass and taunt others online than in real life.

 

Online I don't know you, you don't know me, no physical harm can ever come of it, you can escape by closing your browser.

 

In real life, non of those apply. Basically anybody who says bullying online is the same as bullying in real life is an idiot.

 

I'm starting to think that instead of a passport picture, they should test how thick your skin is before allowing people access to the interwebs.

If someone is being ridiculed online about a personal matter or something close to their heart, why would having the option to 'log off' affect them any differently to being ridiculed at work or somewhere else within the public domain?

 

Granted, how this might affect the individuals doing the ridiculing may not be cause for concern, but then it wouldn't be would it.

 

Also. In addition to testing the thickness of our skin, perhaps we should test how solid our chins are at the same time?

[danot 10]

You can call me a liar if you like, I won't feel the need to punch you. It's difficult for me to prove you wrong as I'd have to prove a negative, but since I've been an adult I've found that not punching people because of something they've said is actually quite easy.

 

Maybe in the circles you live in physical violence is the norm, it certainly isn't amongst anyone I know or might speak to (well, that's outside the martials classes I attend, where it obviously is the norm, but not as a response to a disagreement).

 

What do you mean I wouldn't be saying that. You can't virtually slap someone, so I was referring to the real world, not the virtual one. You can virtually threaten to slap someone and if it's serious that should be dealt with in the same way as it would in the real world.

 

I think you've got it all backwards, the law allows us to ridicule someone, and it already protects us from that person responding with violence. That's the way the world already works.

The law cannot protect you from attack Cyclone. It can be used to prosecute someone after they've attacked you for ridiculing them, but it cannot protect you from attack, which is presumably the reason why online bullying under the cloak of anonymity is on the increase.