Example of BBC hack job

[Owledge]

Language often evolves through misapplication, and this usually leads to some kind of more or less severe misunderstandings / erroneous thought patterns.

 

You know, internet trolls are people who love to provoke and incite arguments, dissonance and anger, just for the fun of it.

 

The BBC (person unknown, since strangely not mentioned in the articles) does a hack job and in bitter irony potentially becomes guilty of massive incitement by equaling trolling with libel and cyberbullying.

 

Here are the articles:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-14897948

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18408457

 

and here the problematic parts:

"But exactly what constitutes trolling, who does it, and who does it affect?

 

Trolling is described by Oxford Dictionaries Online as an "informal term".

 

It means to send or submit a provocative email or posting with the intention of inciting an angry response."

This definition is not very accurate, but correct. The BBC simply overread the second part of the sentence.

 

"However, there is a darker side to trolling, in which people take advantage of anonymity to make hurtful and offensive remarks."

Here, and without any references to back it up, the BBC just extends the Oxford definition.

No, when trolling had this 'darker side', and it becomes legally relevant, then the term is libel. Libel is done with the intention to harm someone's reputation, and thus it is not trolling.

 

""People feel protected by anonymity and the true nature of people comes to the fore," said Mr Turkalp.

 

It is at this point that trolling can also descend into cyberbullying.

 

Cyberbullying is defined by Mr Turkalp as "a repetitious and malicious activity by one person or a group of people against another individual".

 

Sean Duffy had never met the teenagers he posted messages about

 

In the case of Miss MacBryde, her bereaved family and friends were targeted by Duffy's trolling.

 

Duffy posted messages on a remembrance page set up by Miss MacBryde's friends."

Very questionable how you can bully someone through written words that that person doesn't even have to read. This is still libel. This isn't even comparable to harassing someone with repeated indecent phone calls. Legitimizing the term "cyberbullying" also has the problematic implications that someone who is unable to walk away from texts or just delete postings on their Facebook page or generally manage this trivial situation is seen as a victim, not as seriously emotionally disturbed, totally offloading responsibility to the 'bully'. But this just as a side comment. It could deserve its own thread.

 

"Until recent years, the term "trolls" referred to supernatural beings in Norse mythology"

No, not until recent years. It still refers to those beings. It ADDITIONALLY refers to playful internet inciters now.

This is appaling logical ineptitude.

 

 

What could happen thanks to media like this is that the easy and quick labeling of someone who writes something not liked by others as a "troll" may team up with everything labeled "troll" spawning legal action, further fueling the innersocial war-mentality.

[Apech]

BBC very rarely gets the point on this kind of thing. Its like the real world is down the end of a microscope for them ... i.e. a long long way away and a bit strange and not quite understandable.

 

Ah well good old aunty.

[Immortal4life]

Trolls are what make the internet work, or at least online forums.

 

I think there are 3 phases to using an internet forum. First trolling, then inciting flaming, and after you have cleared out the chodes and weak warriors, you then can build forum topics in the manner you want to for the smarter and more open minded people to enjoy.

 

Without trolling there would be no point in forums and posting would be extremely boring. It would be like watching a WWE wrestling program where no one hated each other, there were no rivalries, and everyone got along. Pointless.

 

However, IMO forums are basically dead. Did you ever notice how hard it is to attract a younger hipper demographic to forums? IME most of the posters are still Gen X and Baby Boomers. That's why you get a lot of losers who just want to be skeptical about everything, or people who just want to push their personal values. It isn't true for all forums, but the vast majority of discussion forums have completely failed to attract a new younger demographic. It's even more sad when you look at a forum and all the users are the same people who were there like 7 years ago.

 

The new up and coming people don't seem to want to have intense debates. They just want to get attention, talk about themselves, and pointlessly troll a bit without taking it anywhere.

 

I think social networking has basically rendered forums irrelevant for the most part. This was fine back in the cool days, when only cool people were on social networking, like in the Myspace days. But once 8 year olds and 30 year olds got on it, it all went to crap.

[Protector]

I remember Fox making stupid stuff about 4chan and 4chan specifically, but that was just stupid rambling they do that no one listens to

If this confusion with the language continues as far as to change the law, then I don't even know how much stupid stuff is going to happen

If someone makes a law based on this stuff then it wont work since it's made to work on things that DON'T EVEN EXIST AAAARGH

Are they going to declare LOL a tangible substance next? Being transported through the underground tubes of the internets, being sold illegally on the street and pushed onto our impressionable youths!

[Immortal4life]

We must stop LOL from getting into the schools!

 

LOL Oprah gets trolled-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le4MklhIElI

[konchog uma]

Are they going to declare LOL a tangible substance next? Being transported through the underground tubes of the internets, being sold illegally on the street and pushed onto our impressionable youths!

 

lol

 

the first ones always free

 

and immortal, lol (that'll be 20 bucks) that sounds like the only wrestling i would watch. I bet it would be great to see those steroid addled morons try to figure out what to do if they were told they couldnt smash chairs over each others heads.

 

you know that stuff is 100% scripted right? fake? just checking...

[Immortal4life]

Are you crazy? Does it look fake to you?

[Immortal4life]

Dun-Dun-Dun

[konchog uma]

Are you crazy? Does it look fake to you?

 

yes i probably qualify as "crazy" according to mainstream standards.

 

and yes it looks fake to me. LOL i really don't want to talk about it tho. If people want to feed their minds with violence, thats their problem not mine.

[Owledge]

Are you crazy? Does it look fake to you?

You know what would really have been funny?

Wrestler: *slap* - I this fake?

Wrestler: *slap* - Does this look fake to you?

Reporter: Yeah, that was totally fake. Try this. *BAAAAAAM*

 

 

Dun-Dun-Dun

There you have it. Trolls are terrorist. The language in the first seconds of he video already screams agit-prop.

They also added mobbing to the collection of things trolling allegedly is.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Owledge

[et-thoughts]

 

Very questionable how you can bully someone through written words that that person doesn't even have to read. This is still libel. This isn't even comparable to harassing someone with repeated indecent phone calls. Legitimizing the term "cyberbullying" also has the problematic implications that someone who is unable to walk away from texts or just delete postings on their Facebook page or generally manage this trivial situation is seen as a victim, not as seriously emotionally disturbed, totally offloading responsibility to the 'bully'. But this just as a side comment. It could deserve its own thread.

 

 

That side comment totally offloads responsibility from the 'bully' towards the 'victim' rather than deal with the abusive situation...

Internet "Trolling" is more related to " fishing by trailing a baited line " than "a mythical, cave-dwelling being"...

"cyberbullying" as many other abusive situations in the internet and outside of it has many ramifications that reach far beyond individuals control... and the situation often goes unchecked ... What is needed is effective means to deal with the situations to mitigate abuses reflecting back to each what they do...

[Owledge]

That side comment totally offloads responsibility from the 'bully' towards the 'victim' rather than deal with the abusive situation...

I have no idea where you derive that from. Looks like another logical fallacy.

 

Analogue to abusive sexual harassment claims, people could start sueing others for making statements that they found hurtful because they are emotionally troubled. That's why both sides have to be examined critically.

In fact, it's not an uncommon behavior of emotionally disturbed people to turn their feeling of being threatened into aggression. In extreme cases, people who see themselves as victims can wreak havoc.

There are sufficient means to deal with ordinary (civil, small-scale) cases of libel/defamation. If it doesn't happen, if a happy, joyful, active person commits suicide over internet slander, I smell a skeleton in the family closet. And if not both sides are moved into the spotlight, we get stuff like the "killer-games" debate.

Very often when people ask in a dramatic way: "Oh, how could this happen?! Why? Why?!", it's rhetorical. They don't really want to know, but are glossing over an inconvenient truth with the sweet obscurity and helplessness of drama.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Owledge

[Protector]

In this case it's almost always the victim's fault since the bully person does not exist

 

The modern law cannot deal with this,

Normally there is a victim and a culprit, the culprit get's the punishment and the goal of the punishment is to show that if someone else does the same thing, there will be same consequences to the crime

Kinda like hanging people and leaving them dangling around to scare people from doing what they did

In these online cases there is only pure action without the instigator

There is a trace but it's like trying to grab a cloud

There are needed ways to fight the force itself without expecting there to be someone on the other end

Kinda like, instead of shooting people in the head for robbing a bank, make it impossible to rob a bank

Make it impossible for the conflict to exist, in case if it's a fight, just run away and the fight won't exist

 

Instead of just hunting down trolls, admit that everyone trolls. It's not just a personal thing that someone does, it's something that drives everyone to post annoying things now and then.

It might have something to do with the age and for how long a person has been online.

After enough time you understand that what you write online will not change the world outside the internet, like arguing about the politics on youtube comments wont change how things are in the white house

Opinions are also like that, both sides will show their cards expecting to win but they are only doing it for themselves and the other side might not change after the confrontation

 

These stressful online situations happen when the receiving side decides that the threat is real, the other side doesn't even know the recipient and doesn't actually care

[Owledge]

Instead of just hunting down trolls, admit that everyone trolls. It's not just a personal thing that someone does, it's something that drives everyone to post annoying things now and then.

Then you, too, are misapplying the term "troll". Writing something inciteful out of a mood is not trolling. Trolling is playful in nature, and can be cruelly playful. It is poking people, pushing their buttons, and then reveling in one's power to cause a mess. Trolling is also usually directed at a group of people, not a single person, since in the latter case, the potential for enjoyable trolling is very limited. A troll will always prefer a group over an individual.

 

After enough time you understand that what you write online will not change the world outside the internet, like arguing about the politics on youtube comments wont change how things are in the white house

Self-limiting concept, and disproven by reality in a few massive cases, and apart from those, opinions can grow in supporter numbers and cause a change.

Everything you do changes the world.

Edited June 19, 2012 by Owledge

[Protector]

Trolling is sort of a new invention that came from these harmless chats online

Or more like, it finally has a name and because of calling it by name, there is more of it online

Individual cases are more deadly and get more attention, experience needed to avoid becoming a victim of these cases

It's like a shotgun, can make a huge hole one person but can't hit everyone while aiming at a crowd

 

Self-limiting concept, and disproven by reality in a few massive cases, and apart from those, opinions can grow in supporter numbers and cause a change.

Everything you do changes the world.

 

That's not how you win against them, though

[et-thoughts]

I have no idea where you derive that from. Looks like another logical fallacy.

 

Analogue to abusive sexual harassment claims, people could start sueing others for making statements that they found hurtful because they are emotionally troubled. That's why both sides have to be examined critically.

In fact, it's not an uncommon behavior of emotionally disturbed people to turn their feeling of being threatened into aggression. In extreme cases, people who see themselves as victims can wreak havoc.

There are sufficient means to deal with ordinary (civil, small-scale) cases of libel/defamation. If it doesn't happen, if a happy, joyful, active person commits suicide over internet slander, I smell a skeleton in the family closet. And if not both sides are moved into the spotlight, we get stuff like the "killer-games" debate.

Very often when people ask in a dramatic way: "Oh, how could this happen?! Why? Why?!", it's rhetorical. They don't really want to know, but are glossing over an inconvenient truth with the sweet obscurity and helplessness of drama.

 

It seems you did not look at the quote to get an idea... as to why I said what I said... indeed -both sides have to be examined critical... I have noticed how some project to others what mostly applies to themselves... I seek to be quite careful in that regard... feelings of being threatened into aggression hardly justifies acting with aggression it would be much better to redirect and focus energies appropriately which may sometimes involve reflecting back what individuals put out though its much better to do it in more elegant ways than employing brute force.