Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators
Thanks to Anonymous,bruncher,niord,gvonge,Shelford, for Donating to support the site
Online abuse
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2890
- Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
- Has thanked: 1408 times
- Been thanked: 3838 times
Online abuse
I see we have the usual d*ckheads posting racist abuse online, and it makes me extremely angry that there are no consequences for the people who post not just racist abuse but hate messages generally.
I'm pretty sure that they only do so because they know they can get away with it, and I'd therefore like to float the idea that it should be compulsory for the hosting company (Twitter, Facebook etc) to establish the identity of a user before they were allowed to post.
I wouldn't go so far as requiring people to disclose their true identity online, but at least if the hosting company knew who they were there would be a chance of a prosecution, and on the basis that bullies tend to be cowards the fear of prosecution might just rein in their vileness.
What do other Fools think?
I'm pretty sure that they only do so because they know they can get away with it, and I'd therefore like to float the idea that it should be compulsory for the hosting company (Twitter, Facebook etc) to establish the identity of a user before they were allowed to post.
I wouldn't go so far as requiring people to disclose their true identity online, but at least if the hosting company knew who they were there would be a chance of a prosecution, and on the basis that bullies tend to be cowards the fear of prosecution might just rein in their vileness.
What do other Fools think?
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5917
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
- Has thanked: 4272 times
- Been thanked: 2634 times
Re: Online abuse
Clitheroekid wrote:I'd therefore like to float the idea that it should be compulsory for the hosting company (Twitter, Facebook etc) to establish the identity of a user before they were allowed to post.
Oh, you mean the people pointing out that St Rashford's halo has slipped.
Identity...How?
V8
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 1472
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:18 pm
- Has thanked: 220 times
- Been thanked: 845 times
Re: Online abuse
88V8 wrote:Clitheroekid wrote:I'd therefore like to float the idea that it should be compulsory for the hosting company (Twitter, Facebook etc) to establish the identity of a user before they were allowed to post.
Oh, you mean the people pointing out that St Rashford's halo has slipped.
Identity...How?
V8
Are you try to be amusing?
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3532
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 8:43 am
- Has thanked: 3921 times
- Been thanked: 1438 times
Re: Online abuse
Clitheroekid wrote:I see we have the usual d*ckheads posting racist abuse online, and it makes me extremely angry that there are no consequences for the people who post not just racist abuse but hate messages generally.
I'm pretty sure that they only do so because they know they can get away with it, and I'd therefore like to float the idea that it should be compulsory for the hosting company (Twitter, Facebook etc) to establish the identity of a user before they were allowed to post.
I wouldn't go so far as requiring people to disclose their true identity online, but at least if the hosting company knew who they were there would be a chance of a prosecution, and on the basis that bullies tend to be cowards the fear of prosecution might just rein in their vileness.
What do other Fools think?
I sympathise with your feelings of revulsion, but I would fight to the bitter end to avoid having to give up any more personal information to large organisations! The thought of setting more and more precedents, losing even more privacy and subsequent implications are far more terrifying than idiots spouting racist nonsense.
Besides, if the police want, they can usually track these people via their IP addresses. They're probably not the type who would know how to hide their tracks. I also think that, repugnant though it is, if we sanitise the internet, a lot of these people will just put their energy into other and possibly worse actions.
Steve
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3574
- Joined: November 7th, 2016, 1:56 pm
- Has thanked: 1598 times
- Been thanked: 1421 times
Re: Online abuse
Clitheroekid wrote:What do other Fools think?
It will take some time but I think AI will be able to make some progress with this. For example Darktrace is doing some very very clever stuff in cyber security. And China seems to be big on face recognition software. Why not track people across social media. They could call it Thinkpol.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 1965
- Joined: June 21st, 2017, 12:02 am
- Has thanked: 262 times
- Been thanked: 968 times
Re: Online abuse
Clitheroekid wrote:I see we have the usual d*ckheads posting racist abuse online, and it makes me extremely angry that there are no consequences for the people who post not just racist abuse but hate messages generally.
I'm pretty sure that they only do so because they know they can get away with it, and I'd therefore like to float the idea that it should be compulsory for the hosting company (Twitter, Facebook etc) to establish the identity of a user before they were allowed to post.
I wouldn't go so far as requiring people to disclose their true identity online, but at least if the hosting company knew who they were there would be a chance of a prosecution, and on the basis that bullies tend to be cowards the fear of prosecution might just rein in their vileness.
What do other Fools think?
Hopefully the police can identify them, arrest them, charge them and they can then be paraded through the courts. Nothing less than they deserve. Despicable behaviour.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 8246
- Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:30 pm
- Has thanked: 2926 times
- Been thanked: 4038 times
Re: Online abuse
Surely it would be better to start by educating the public about the idiots who are out there on social media?
When I rule the world, every social media company will randomly post up a reminder to its readers, every fifty page hits or thereabouts, that will say (perhaps more briefly ) :
BJ
When I rule the world, every social media company will randomly post up a reminder to its readers, every fifty page hits or thereabouts, that will say (perhaps more briefly ) :
"We don't always have a way of checking the identity of our posters. And nor can we vouch that the facts you find expressed on our site have been professionally checked and validated, as a conventional news source would be expected to do. But please be aware that some of your fellow users are total dickheads who will say outrageous stuff - racist, sexist, libellous, disrespectful, politically suspect - just to give vent to whatever is in their ignorant, bigoted minds at this particular moment.
Some, indeed, are actually being paid by hostile interest groups to disrupt the flow of truthful information in this way. But most of them are saddos who would be justifiably afraid of opening their loathsome mouths in a real-world situation where they might be called upon to answer for their actions.
Please don't be one of them. And don't feed the trolls. Please don't re-quote them, unless and until you've cross-checked their splenetic regurgitations for truth and honesty. As a participant on these forums, your commonsense is all that stands between fairness, truth and reason, and vilification and falsehood. Let's stamp this out."
BJ
-
- Lemon Slice
- Posts: 802
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:49 pm
- Has thanked: 864 times
- Been thanked: 441 times
Re: Online abuse
Clitheroekid wrote:I see we have the usual d*ckheads posting racist abuse online, and it makes me extremely angry that there are no consequences for the people who post not just racist abuse but hate messages generally.
I'm pretty sure that they only do so because they know they can get away with it, and I'd therefore like to float the idea that it should be compulsory for the hosting company (Twitter, Facebook etc) to establish the identity of a user before they were allowed to post.
I wouldn't go so far as requiring people to disclose their true identity online, but at least if the hosting company knew who they were there would be a chance of a prosecution, and on the basis that bullies tend to be cowards the fear of prosecution might just rein in their vileness.
What do other Fools think?
I've always thought that FaceTwit Et al. should be forced to charge a small joining fee ($5, £5) which is refundable on leaving the service/closing the account. That would make users & abusers easily traceable. As for 'privacy', the same applies for every service you use, be it Apple to Zen, so why should social media be any different ?
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5377
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:04 pm
- Has thanked: 3334 times
- Been thanked: 1051 times
Re: Online abuse
are these suggestions really workable in every country in the world?
and if false ID to get into a pub under age is fairly easily available (AIUI) then frankly false ID to get a SM account would be equally trivial.
IP address etc is probably the best way forward but that falls down fairly easuily too using eg
* VPNs
* connecting to other's wifi (Costa, neighbours etc)
* using data on a falsely registered (if even registered?) mobile phone bought with cash that is a PAYG sim topped up with cash etc
and if false ID to get into a pub under age is fairly easily available (AIUI) then frankly false ID to get a SM account would be equally trivial.
IP address etc is probably the best way forward but that falls down fairly easuily too using eg
* VPNs
* connecting to other's wifi (Costa, neighbours etc)
* using data on a falsely registered (if even registered?) mobile phone bought with cash that is a PAYG sim topped up with cash etc
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 8009
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:24 am
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 3086 times
Re: Online abuse
Redmires wrote:I've always thought that FaceTwit Et al. should be forced to charge a small joining fee ($5, £5) which is refundable on leaving the service/closing the account. That would make users & abusers easily traceable.
They don't even have to charge a joining fee. If they just ask for a credit/debit card number, with all the normal information needed to make a transaction -- inc. name & address of course -- they can then just make a payment reservation against the card for a tiny amount (1p, 1¢), and that will validate (or reject) it, including possibly a 2FA check if the card provider does those. They then just release the reservation, so no payment is actually taken and the only effect on the card holder is to reduce their available limit by that tiny amount for the period of the reservation.
Not 100% foolproof of course, but then nothing is, and it's certainly more difficult to get around for the average punter than simply just sidestepping your IP address, which, as didds points out, is pretty trivial and easily accessible to do.
I think more importantly, while whatever means are taken won't stop the professional trolling houses, for the vast majority of amateur d*ckheads having to provide that information on signup, and hence knowing that the social media company does know who you are, could very well give a sobering pause whenever they think of posting abuse, etc.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 7324
- Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
- Has thanked: 1701 times
- Been thanked: 3907 times
Re: Online abuse
mc2fool wrote:Redmires wrote:I've always thought that FaceTwit Et al. should be forced to charge a small joining fee ($5, £5) which is refundable on leaving the service/closing the account. That would make users & abusers easily traceable.
They don't even have to charge a joining fee. If they just ask for a credit/debit card number, with all the normal information needed to make a transaction -- inc. name & address of course -- they can then just make a payment reservation against the card for a tiny amount (1p, 1¢), and that will validate (or reject) it, including possibly a 2FA check if the card provider does those. They then just release the reservation, so no payment is actually taken and the only effect on the card holder is to reduce their available limit by that tiny amount for the period of the reservation.
Not 100% foolproof of course, but then nothing is, and it's certainly more difficult to get around for the average punter than simply just sidestepping your IP address, which, as didds points out, is pretty trivial and easily accessible to do.
I think more importantly, while whatever means are taken won't stop the professional trolling houses, for the vast majority of amateur d*ckheads having to provide that information on signup, and hence knowing that the social media company does know who you are, could very well give a sobering pause whenever they think of posting abuse, etc.
But don't the social media companies already hold enough info to identify the average facebook poster who took no particular identity-avoiding action when signing up?
On a related note, I used to post occasionally on facebook using my account in the name of <my trading name>. After a few years FB messaged me demanding I provide proof that this was my real name, i.e. a scan of my passport, a council tax demand or a few other cheeky and invasive things. I declined so my FB account was blocked. Presumably someone has complained about me and queried my identity. The same demands could easily be issued to FB accounts posting racial abuse.
Presumably it is FB, instagram et al where these offensive posts are being made.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 8009
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:24 am
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 3086 times
Re: Online abuse
Mike4 wrote:But don't the social media companies already hold enough info to identify the average facebook poster who took no particular identity-avoiding action when signing up?
Uh? Not all social media companies are Facebook!
Yeah, sure, if you've signed up to whatever site using your real name (and it isn't John Smith), and you've posted the town where you live, where you went to university and put up photos of what you did on your 21st, etc, etc -- like a lot of people seem to do -- then it's easy. Are those the average trolls?
Now, as this is also a form of social media, what info does TLF have to identify Mike4?
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3532
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 8:43 am
- Has thanked: 3921 times
- Been thanked: 1438 times
Re: Online abuse
Mike4 wrote:mc2fool wrote:Redmires wrote:I've always thought that FaceTwit Et al. should be forced to charge a small joining fee ($5, £5) which is refundable on leaving the service/closing the account. That would make users & abusers easily traceable.
They don't even have to charge a joining fee. If they just ask for a credit/debit card number, with all the normal information needed to make a transaction -- inc. name & address of course -- they can then just make a payment reservation against the card for a tiny amount (1p, 1¢), and that will validate (or reject) it, including possibly a 2FA check if the card provider does those. They then just release the reservation, so no payment is actually taken and the only effect on the card holder is to reduce their available limit by that tiny amount for the period of the reservation.
Not 100% foolproof of course, but then nothing is, and it's certainly more difficult to get around for the average punter than simply just sidestepping your IP address, which, as didds points out, is pretty trivial and easily accessible to do.
I think more importantly, while whatever means are taken won't stop the professional trolling houses, for the vast majority of amateur d*ckheads having to provide that information on signup, and hence knowing that the social media company does know who you are, could very well give a sobering pause whenever they think of posting abuse, etc.
But don't the social media companies already hold enough info to identify the average facebook poster who took no particular identity-avoiding action when signing up?
On a related note, I used to post occasionally on facebook using my account in the name of <my trading name>. After a few years FB messaged me demanding I provide proof that this was my real name, i.e. a scan of my passport, a council tax demand or a few other cheeky and invasive things. I declined so my FB account was blocked. Presumably someone has complained about me and queried my identity. The same demands could easily be issued to FB accounts posting racial abuse.
Presumably it is FB, instagram et al where these offensive posts are being made.
I haven't heard of FB demanding proof of ID before. The ironic thing is, for reasons of privacy and security, I've always urged my kids and colleagues to never use their correct names and DOB etc when registering for these things. e.g. my FB DOB has the correct month, but the day and year altered by one, so birthday wishes are more or less correct. Place of birth is the closest town to the real one, I use the spelling 'Stephen' instead of 'Steven' and make a few changes to other info. Like you, I would never dream of sending those organisations a scan of my passport, or indeed, anything.
Steve
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 7324
- Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
- Has thanked: 1701 times
- Been thanked: 3907 times
Re: Online abuse
mc2fool wrote:Mike4 wrote:But don't the social media companies already hold enough info to identify the average facebook poster who took no particular identity-avoiding action when signing up?
Uh? Not all social media companies are Facebook!
Yeah, sure, if you've signed up to whatever site using your real name (and it isn't John Smith), and you've posted the town where you live, where you went to university and put up photos of what you did on your 21st, etc, etc -- like a lot of people seem to do -- then it's easy. Are those the average trolls?
Now, as this is also a form of social media, what info does TLF have to identify Mike4?
My real ID is widely known by many posters on here.
So are you saying these offending posts being complained about in the BBC News are on trivial and peripheral sites like TLF? I suspect the main problem is posts on the big players e.g. FB, Instagram, et al.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 7383
- Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
- Has thanked: 10514 times
- Been thanked: 4660 times
Re: Online abuse
Clitheroekid wrote:I see we have the usual d*ckheads posting racist abuse online, and it makes me extremely angry that there are no consequences for the people who post not just racist abuse but hate messages generally.
I'd like to think I'm a reasonably savvy guy. There are some fairly ruthless individuals in society. Left unchallenged they will simply reinforce their own beliefs and their behaviour will continue and deteriorate. But the flip side is there are consequences aren't there? These people are wasting their own life. There's nothing positive or constructive about what they do. I can't judge Marcus Rashford for missing a penalty. Sheesh it's a game. And he shouldn't be too hard on himself. But I can judge him or the work he's done on school dinners. And I will. He's certainly earned my respect and suspect that of many more.
England played well. They didn't win. Disappointing. But they have won the hearts of a nation, the hearts of most in the UK. They've entertained. I was happy to jump on the bi-annual roller coaster and will do so next year.
There will always be some who feel they can absolve themselves of any responsibility they have to others. But for those who took penalties for England last night I'd like to say thank you. I am proud of all of you and you should be proud of yourselves.
AiY
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 10912
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
- Has thanked: 1485 times
- Been thanked: 3030 times
Re: Online abuse
From the quotes, I guess Mr Rashford must've disgraced himself in public? I hope it was in the manner of a mistake, rather than doing anything deliberately bad.
Oh dear, it's on the news. Politicians having a row about it.
Whatever "it" is.
'Cos noone (including here) is actually telling us what they're talking about. If I post "Rashford is useless", is that racist abuse? What if I use a stronger expression than "useless"? Hopeless bloke gets scapegoated for failing to win match?
I wouldn't call that racist abuse, and neither (I suspect) would most here. But if you hear a headline about racism followed by an explanation that they found a million tweets being rude about black players, you have to ask how exactly they reached that count and what was included.
88V8 wrote:Clitheroekid wrote:I'd therefore like to float the idea that it should be compulsory for the hosting company (Twitter, Facebook etc) to establish the identity of a user before they were allowed to post.
Oh, you mean the people pointing out that St Rashford's halo has slipped.
Identity...How?
V8
Oh dear, it's on the news. Politicians having a row about it.
Whatever "it" is.
'Cos noone (including here) is actually telling us what they're talking about. If I post "Rashford is useless", is that racist abuse? What if I use a stronger expression than "useless"? Hopeless bloke gets scapegoated for failing to win match?
I wouldn't call that racist abuse, and neither (I suspect) would most here. But if you hear a headline about racism followed by an explanation that they found a million tweets being rude about black players, you have to ask how exactly they reached that count and what was included.
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 12636
- Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
- Been thanked: 2609 times
Re: Online abuse
UncleEbenezer wrote:From the quotes, I guess Mr Rashford must've disgraced himself in public? I hope it was in the manner of a mistake, rather than doing anything deliberately bad.
Oh dear, it's on the news. Politicians having a row about it.
Whatever "it" is.
'Cos noone (including here) is actually telling us what they're talking about. If I post "Rashford is useless", is that racist abuse? What if I use a stronger expression than "useless"? Hopeless bloke gets scapegoated for failing to win match?
I wouldn't call that racist abuse, and neither (I suspect) would most here. But if you hear a headline about racism followed by an explanation that they found a million tweets being rude about black players, you have to ask how exactly they reached that count and what was included.
Does this help?
https://twitter.com/MetPoliceEvents/status/1414380936016318464
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 1103
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:12 pm
- Has thanked: 179 times
- Been thanked: 378 times
Re: Online abuse
UncleEbenezer wrote:Oh dear, it's on the news. Politicians having a row about it.
Whatever "it" is.
'Cos noone (including here) is actually telling us what they're talking about. If I post "Rashford is useless", is that racist abuse? What if I use a stronger expression than "useless"? Hopeless bloke gets scapegoated for failing to win match?
I can't work out if you are being naïve or disingenuous. How about calling for the deaths of the "useless f!cking gingers*"
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVN_0qvuhhw
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 1345
- Joined: March 27th, 2017, 11:41 am
- Has thanked: 605 times
- Been thanked: 588 times
Re: Online abuse
The solution to these issues is always that the social media companies need to hire more content moderators.
Currently Facebook have one moderator for every 20,000 users, that's like hiring one IT person to look after 10 high schools. To do the job properly will need roughly 10 X that amount.
Every time this conversation comes up the social media companies respond with some variety of "we are improving the algorithm to crack down on this". They know that's never going to solve anything, they just don't want to spend the money hiring enough people.
Currently Facebook have one moderator for every 20,000 users, that's like hiring one IT person to look after 10 high schools. To do the job properly will need roughly 10 X that amount.
Every time this conversation comes up the social media companies respond with some variety of "we are improving the algorithm to crack down on this". They know that's never going to solve anything, they just don't want to spend the money hiring enough people.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5377
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:04 pm
- Has thanked: 3334 times
- Been thanked: 1051 times
Re: Online abuse
Lanark wrote: "we are improving the algorithm to crack down on this"..
and the algorithm is rubbish. This year alone Ive had bans - mostly overturned - for the sue of the words for
* faggots wrt my dinner
* "hey ho" as in "it is what it is" etc
* trying sell alcohol becasue i posted a receipe with alcohol in it - on a group that only i am in (I use it as a sort of reference library)
there have beena couple of other times that made no sense whatsoever!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests