This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/oct/19/new-internet-age-trolls

The article has changed 58 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 31 Version 32
A new internet age? Web users turn on 'trolls' A new internet age? Web users turn on 'trolls'
(about 1 hour later)
When mourners arrived at the peace park in Maple Ridge, Vancouver, to pay tribute to Amanda Todd this week, few could have realised quite how widely the effects of the 15-year-old's death were being felt.When mourners arrived at the peace park in Maple Ridge, Vancouver, to pay tribute to Amanda Todd this week, few could have realised quite how widely the effects of the 15-year-old's death were being felt.
News of her suicide, apparently as a result of years of cyberbullying, provoked the internet vigilante group Anonymous to reveal the personal details of the man it says tormented her under an online pseudonym.News of her suicide, apparently as a result of years of cyberbullying, provoked the internet vigilante group Anonymous to reveal the personal details of the man it says tormented her under an online pseudonym.
It came in the same week that an American journalist outed the real-life identity of one of the "biggest trolls on the web" as Michael Brutsch, a man accused of posting sexualised images of underage girls and graphic images of domestic violence on Reddit, the hugely popular open-source website now considered so influential it recently hosted a question and answer session with Barack Obama.It came in the same week that an American journalist outed the real-life identity of one of the "biggest trolls on the web" as Michael Brutsch, a man accused of posting sexualised images of underage girls and graphic images of domestic violence on Reddit, the hugely popular open-source website now considered so influential it recently hosted a question and answer session with Barack Obama.
Does this represent a turning point in the history of the web, when the cloak of anonymity was torn away from internet trolls?Does this represent a turning point in the history of the web, when the cloak of anonymity was torn away from internet trolls?
"This has been a wake-up call to the people who participate in these online communities to really think through what their responsibilities are," said Zeynep Tufekci, of the centre for information technology policy at Princeton University. The events surrounding the exposure of Brutsch's identity, as well as that of Todd's alleged tormentor, represent a sea change, according to Tufekci. "People are realising they cannot afford to have this 'live and let live' ethos to what is posted on their site. I feel like this is a social movement on a par with the Arab spring.""This has been a wake-up call to the people who participate in these online communities to really think through what their responsibilities are," said Zeynep Tufekci, of the centre for information technology policy at Princeton University. The events surrounding the exposure of Brutsch's identity, as well as that of Todd's alleged tormentor, represent a sea change, according to Tufekci. "People are realising they cannot afford to have this 'live and let live' ethos to what is posted on their site. I feel like this is a social movement on a par with the Arab spring."
Brutsch, 49, was outed as a prolifically offensive user of Reddit. Under the user name Violentacrez, he habitually published pictures of underage girls in a now defunct section called Jailbait. As well as creating forums under the names Chokeabitch, Niggerjailbait and Incest, Violentacrez was also responsible for the reviled Creepshot series, which published images of women and girls taken without their consent.Brutsch, 49, was outed as a prolifically offensive user of Reddit. Under the user name Violentacrez, he habitually published pictures of underage girls in a now defunct section called Jailbait. As well as creating forums under the names Chokeabitch, Niggerjailbait and Incest, Violentacrez was also responsible for the reviled Creepshot series, which published images of women and girls taken without their consent.
A number of recent cases in the UK and Europe have brought to light a growing division in public opinion over the murky boundary between offensive online behaviour and freedom of speech. This month a Yorkshire man who posted an offensive Facebook message following the deaths of six British soldiers was given a community order. In July, a Welsh teenager was arrested after sending abusive tweets to the Olympic diver Tom Daley, but charges were later dropped.A number of recent cases in the UK and Europe have brought to light a growing division in public opinion over the murky boundary between offensive online behaviour and freedom of speech. This month a Yorkshire man who posted an offensive Facebook message following the deaths of six British soldiers was given a community order. In July, a Welsh teenager was arrested after sending abusive tweets to the Olympic diver Tom Daley, but charges were later dropped.
Adrian Chen, the journalist who exposed Brutsch, came under instant criticism from Reddit's moderators when the story broke. "We stand for free speech," said Reddit's Yishan Wong. "We are not going to ban distasteful subreddits [subsections]." But Chen, who works for Gawker, says the response to his story elsewhere has been "overwhelmingly positive".Adrian Chen, the journalist who exposed Brutsch, came under instant criticism from Reddit's moderators when the story broke. "We stand for free speech," said Reddit's Yishan Wong. "We are not going to ban distasteful subreddits [subsections]." But Chen, who works for Gawker, says the response to his story elsewhere has been "overwhelmingly positive".
"I thought there would be more of a backlash about the story, but people really are willing to accept that anonymity is not a given on the internet and if people use pseudonyms to publish sexualised images of women without their consent, and of underage girls, then there's not really a legitimate claim to privacy," Chen told the Guardian."I thought there would be more of a backlash about the story, but people really are willing to accept that anonymity is not a given on the internet and if people use pseudonyms to publish sexualised images of women without their consent, and of underage girls, then there's not really a legitimate claim to privacy," Chen told the Guardian.
Aleks Krotoski, author of the forthcoming book Untangling the Web: What the Internet is Doing to You, believes we are entering a new phase of the internet age, one in which trolls can no longer pretend they are not part of the real world. "The rise of Facebook and Google ushered in an enormous number of people who hadn't previously used the web, and this has seen a shift in attitudes towards anonymity. Ten years ago people were used to having many different personas – at work, at home, with their friends.Aleks Krotoski, author of the forthcoming book Untangling the Web: What the Internet is Doing to You, believes we are entering a new phase of the internet age, one in which trolls can no longer pretend they are not part of the real world. "The rise of Facebook and Google ushered in an enormous number of people who hadn't previously used the web, and this has seen a shift in attitudes towards anonymity. Ten years ago people were used to having many different personas – at work, at home, with their friends.
"During this time, fewer people used the internet and anonymity was the norm. Now that most people have an online identity on Facebook or the like, anonymity is regarded with suspicion and associated with hackers, abusive commentators and scammers." A recent example involved a man who called himself David Rose, inventing a life online as a deaf man with quadriplegia. His Dave on Wheels blog attracted a devoted audience, but soon after it became an internet hit, Dave "died". His fans were left bereft, doubly so when the entire episode was revealed to have been faked, allegedly by a 53-year-old man from San Francisco."During this time, fewer people used the internet and anonymity was the norm. Now that most people have an online identity on Facebook or the like, anonymity is regarded with suspicion and associated with hackers, abusive commentators and scammers." A recent example involved a man who called himself David Rose, inventing a life online as a deaf man with quadriplegia. His Dave on Wheels blog attracted a devoted audience, but soon after it became an internet hit, Dave "died". His fans were left bereft, doubly so when the entire episode was revealed to have been faked, allegedly by a 53-year-old man from San Francisco.
"People themselves are becoming less and less inclined to be anonymous online because it is now associated with bad behaviour," said Krotoski."People themselves are becoming less and less inclined to be anonymous online because it is now associated with bad behaviour," said Krotoski.
Chen is keen to highlight a crucial difference in the way the man at the centre of the Amanda Todd case was outed and the story that unfolded around Michael Brutsch. "What Anonymous did by outing this guy was invite a mob response, which is no more responsible than abusing someone online in the first place," said Chen, who investigated Brutsch for many months before confronting him and Reddit. He pointed out that attacking a website which provides the structure for depravity and non-consensual sexualised imagery is very different from inviting the world to attack an individual whose guilt has not been proven. The Vancouver man named by Anonymous has denied responsibilty for the bullying.Chen is keen to highlight a crucial difference in the way the man at the centre of the Amanda Todd case was outed and the story that unfolded around Michael Brutsch. "What Anonymous did by outing this guy was invite a mob response, which is no more responsible than abusing someone online in the first place," said Chen, who investigated Brutsch for many months before confronting him and Reddit. He pointed out that attacking a website which provides the structure for depravity and non-consensual sexualised imagery is very different from inviting the world to attack an individual whose guilt has not been proven. The Vancouver man named by Anonymous has denied responsibilty for the bullying.
Wendy Grossman, a technology specialist who sits on the Open Rights Group committee, pointed to other dangers if anonymity online is undermined: Outing Michael Brutsch is absolutely justified for public interest. But the Todd case is clearly complex. Say, for example, Amanda Todd had used a pseudonym to seek help from a women's forum online because she already felt too vulnerable to use her real name. She would have been entitled to that privacy."Wendy Grossman, a technology specialist who sits on the Open Rights Group committee, pointed to other dangers if anonymity online is undermined: Outing Michael Brutsch is absolutely justified for public interest. But the Todd case is clearly complex. Say, for example, Amanda Todd had used a pseudonym to seek help from a women's forum online because she already felt too vulnerable to use her real name. She would have been entitled to that privacy."
Krotoski agreed. "Privacy is crucial to human development," she said, "but it is more and more scarce now that so much of the general population is online. But what these last few weeks show us is that we're entering a new phase of understanding about what is and isn't acceptable."Krotoski agreed. "Privacy is crucial to human development," she said, "but it is more and more scarce now that so much of the general population is online. But what these last few weeks show us is that we're entering a new phase of understanding about what is and isn't acceptable."
Amanda Todd's storyAmanda Todd's story
Like many 12-year-olds, Vancouver teenager Amanda Todd liked going on chat rooms to meet people. When a stranger told her she was "perfect, beautiful, stunning", Todd was coerced into flashing her breasts for a man she did not know. That moment of naivety would contribute to her death suicide three years later.Like many 12-year-olds, Vancouver teenager Amanda Todd liked going on chat rooms to meet people. When a stranger told her she was "perfect, beautiful, stunning", Todd was coerced into flashing her breasts for a man she did not know. That moment of naivety would contribute to her death suicide three years later.
The details of exactly what happened remain unclear, but Todd published a nine-minute video on YouTube that explained her story via a series of cue cards.The details of exactly what happened remain unclear, but Todd published a nine-minute video on YouTube that explained her story via a series of cue cards.
A year after the webcam incident, a man contacted Todd on Facebook, claiming he had pictures of her exposed breasts and would publish them unless she "put on a show" for him. He carried out that threat and sent her picture to "everyone". Years of bullying followed. Todd changed schools twice but the picture continued to be circulated, possibly by the same man, to new friends wherever she went. Depression, substance abuse and self-harm preceded two suicide attempts before Todd finally had enough and took her own life on 10 October. She was 15. Police in Canada are investigating claims made by the "hacktivist" group Anonymous that a 32-year-old Vancouver man is responsible.A year after the webcam incident, a man contacted Todd on Facebook, claiming he had pictures of her exposed breasts and would publish them unless she "put on a show" for him. He carried out that threat and sent her picture to "everyone". Years of bullying followed. Todd changed schools twice but the picture continued to be circulated, possibly by the same man, to new friends wherever she went. Depression, substance abuse and self-harm preceded two suicide attempts before Todd finally had enough and took her own life on 10 October. She was 15. Police in Canada are investigating claims made by the "hacktivist" group Anonymous that a 32-year-old Vancouver man is responsible.
CommentsComments
53 comments, displaying first 54 comments, displaying first
19 October 2012 7:00PM19 October 2012 7:00PM
tl;drtl;dr
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
19 October 2012 7:15PM19 October 2012 7:15PM
Its long overdue zeroing the trolls, facebook and Twitter are hot beds of abuse, maybe it is time to operate pro-active moderation on social sites. These people are causing mental ill health, encouraging bullies, causing death and denigration of all types. Sadly there is no desire by Twitter or Facebook to do anything about it, they could at least refuse a twitter/facebook account without a valid address and name, then they can be ID'd and reported to the police. Those found guilty, banned for life operating on social sites again. Say no to the Anons. No name, no account.Its long overdue zeroing the trolls, facebook and Twitter are hot beds of abuse, maybe it is time to operate pro-active moderation on social sites. These people are causing mental ill health, encouraging bullies, causing death and denigration of all types. Sadly there is no desire by Twitter or Facebook to do anything about it, they could at least refuse a twitter/facebook account without a valid address and name, then they can be ID'd and reported to the police. Those found guilty, banned for life operating on social sites again. Say no to the Anons. No name, no account.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
19 October 2012 7:17PM19 October 2012 7:17PM
This site was hit by a Republican troll spam attack after the second Presidential debate. One of the commenters Googled the first couple of lines from the post and found that it had been posted to just about every news and political blog on the net. Just Google : "Hello, my fellow American voters! I watched the Oct. 3rd and Oct. 16th presidential and Oct. 11th vice-presidential debates." and see what I mean.This site was hit by a Republican troll spam attack after the second Presidential debate. One of the commenters Googled the first couple of lines from the post and found that it had been posted to just about every news and political blog on the net. Just Google : "Hello, my fellow American voters! I watched the Oct. 3rd and Oct. 16th presidential and Oct. 11th vice-presidential debates." and see what I mean.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
19 October 2012 7:29PM19 October 2012 7:29PM
Chen is keen to highlight a crucial difference in the way the man at the centre of the Amanda Todd case was outed and the story that unfolded around Michael Brutsch. "What Anonymous did by outing this guy was invite a mob response, which is no more responsible than abusing someone online in the first place," said Chen, who investigated Brutsch for many months before confronting him and Reddit.Chen is keen to highlight a crucial difference in the way the man at the centre of the Amanda Todd case was outed and the story that unfolded around Michael Brutsch. "What Anonymous did by outing this guy was invite a mob response, which is no more responsible than abusing someone online in the first place," said Chen, who investigated Brutsch for many months before confronting him and Reddit.
That's just rubbish. By outing Michael Brutsch, Chen was also inviting a mob response and it is nothing short of hypocrisy to now condemn another outing for resulting in a mob response while apparently being oblivious of how your same action has resulted in the same outcome. The real difference between the two case is that Brutsch was only accused of posting images and texts that some or perhaps most people find offensive. The other guy is being accused of harrassing a teenager to the point of suicide. I know which one I'd think is far worse.That's just rubbish. By outing Michael Brutsch, Chen was also inviting a mob response and it is nothing short of hypocrisy to now condemn another outing for resulting in a mob response while apparently being oblivious of how your same action has resulted in the same outcome. The real difference between the two case is that Brutsch was only accused of posting images and texts that some or perhaps most people find offensive. The other guy is being accused of harrassing a teenager to the point of suicide. I know which one I'd think is far worse.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
19 October 2012 7:36PM19 October 2012 7:36PM
Agree with the thrust of this article. Times are a changin'.Agree with the thrust of this article. Times are a changin'.
Both Google + (more than 400 million followers) and Facebook are social networks that require real ID to post. Most other sites cater for anonymity. Last year The Atlantic ran an interesting story on the trends here too:Both Google + (more than 400 million followers) and Facebook are social networks that require real ID to post. Most other sites cater for anonymity. Last year The Atlantic ran an interesting story on the trends here too:
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/why-facebook-and-googles-concept-of-real-names-is-revolutionary/243171/#http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/why-facebook-and-googles-concept-of-real-names-is-revolutionary/243171/#
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
19 October 2012 8:28PM19 October 2012 8:28PM
I feel like this is a social movement on a par with the Arab SpringI feel like this is a social movement on a par with the Arab Spring
...and the Nobel Prize for Hyperbole goes to Zeynep Tufekci....and the Nobel Prize for Hyperbole goes to Zeynep Tufekci.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
19 October 2012 8:52PM19 October 2012 8:52PM
Krotoski agreed. "Privacy is crucial to human development," she said, "but it is more and more scarce now that so much of the general population is online. But what these last few weeks show us is that we're entering a new phase of understanding about what is and isn't acceptable."Krotoski agreed. "Privacy is crucial to human development," she said, "but it is more and more scarce now that so much of the general population is online. But what these last few weeks show us is that we're entering a new phase of understanding about what is and isn't acceptable."
What nonsense, privacy is a 21st/20th century luxury dreamed up in the West. It not essential to human development and humans have been developing okay for the past few millions years with far less privacy than we have today, most of us have our own rooms, our own loos, our own bedrooms, our own cloths, this is not the norm in the history of human development, Even a hundred years ago 5 people sleeping in a single bedroom was the norm, and you have zero privacy in that situation.What nonsense, privacy is a 21st/20th century luxury dreamed up in the West. It not essential to human development and humans have been developing okay for the past few millions years with far less privacy than we have today, most of us have our own rooms, our own loos, our own bedrooms, our own cloths, this is not the norm in the history of human development, Even a hundred years ago 5 people sleeping in a single bedroom was the norm, and you have zero privacy in that situation.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
19 October 2012 10:54PM19 October 2012 10:54PM
What's next? An end to the secret ballot? Political disputes require privacy so the average person can make his views known without fear of retribution.What's next? An end to the secret ballot? Political disputes require privacy so the average person can make his views known without fear of retribution.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
19 October 2012 11:22PM19 October 2012 11:22PM
It might seem there's an enormous gulf between political posts and upskirt pictures. But the lawyers say no. Think about it. Every political position has serious winners and losers if it becomes policy. That's why its contentious. Every thought process which distinguishes individual characteristics is the same. Call someone fat, thin, smart, dumb, rich, poor, ugly, beautiful and you have winners and losers.It might seem there's an enormous gulf between political posts and upskirt pictures. But the lawyers say no. Think about it. Every political position has serious winners and losers if it becomes policy. That's why its contentious. Every thought process which distinguishes individual characteristics is the same. Call someone fat, thin, smart, dumb, rich, poor, ugly, beautiful and you have winners and losers.
Look at this article. You'd never know that huge numbers of reddit users, and many, many others, are outraged about the violation of anonymity. Think about the effects of "moderation" - a euphimism for censorship. Would you ever know about such views if Guardian moderators had unlimited powers?Look at this article. You'd never know that huge numbers of reddit users, and many, many others, are outraged about the violation of anonymity. Think about the effects of "moderation" - a euphimism for censorship. Would you ever know about such views if Guardian moderators had unlimited powers?
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
19 October 2012 11:38PM19 October 2012 11:38PM
People should have the right to speak their mind freely through the net and in the real life too. It's just far easier to take a nickname and say things you wouldn't dare saying otherwise. That's coward. I think "virtual life" has now become an active part of everyone's life, so it's impossible to divide the real from the virtual, but we should still have common sense and more importantly humanity. I've seen a lot of trolling actions during my "virtual life experience", but I've never heard of anything like the Todd case. I'm shoked! Even if you have the right to be free on the net ("I don't agree with you, but I'd gladily die to let you express it" [cit.] Voltaire) it's not like you can reach such points! In these cases I really prefer these people to be caught and put in jail for a long, long time. To bully someone that badly.....just for your laugh sake....makes you worse than an animal!People should have the right to speak their mind freely through the net and in the real life too. It's just far easier to take a nickname and say things you wouldn't dare saying otherwise. That's coward. I think "virtual life" has now become an active part of everyone's life, so it's impossible to divide the real from the virtual, but we should still have common sense and more importantly humanity. I've seen a lot of trolling actions during my "virtual life experience", but I've never heard of anything like the Todd case. I'm shoked! Even if you have the right to be free on the net ("I don't agree with you, but I'd gladily die to let you express it" [cit.] Voltaire) it's not like you can reach such points! In these cases I really prefer these people to be caught and put in jail for a long, long time. To bully someone that badly.....just for your laugh sake....makes you worse than an animal!
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
19 October 2012 11:40PM19 October 2012 11:40PM
It is heartbreaking to read what happened to that young girl. I hope those that are responsible pay an appropriate price. There is no place in society for people like that.It is heartbreaking to read what happened to that young girl. I hope those that are responsible pay an appropriate price. There is no place in society for people like that.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
19 October 2012 11:57PM19 October 2012 11:57PM
it is isolation that brings these individuals to a point where they feel safe enough to torment. to view the interenet as merely an extension of humanity seems appropriate, but however exponentially we are brought together by it, we are also divided by it.it is isolation that brings these individuals to a point where they feel safe enough to torment. to view the interenet as merely an extension of humanity seems appropriate, but however exponentially we are brought together by it, we are also divided by it.
slow the highspeed world as often as possible. live where you are.slow the highspeed world as often as possible. live where you are.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 12:15AM20 October 2012 12:15AM
So should Anonymous be anonymous??
IF they are wrong about the man accused of harrassing young Amanda Todd [and that may be a big IF] then shouldn't they be outed too? Or at least obliged to take responsibility for their actions.
I'm not saying they didn't do something vital and praiseworthy, but at least Mr Chen above has put his name [I assume it's the correct one!] behind his actions.
PS fulhamfan is my real name - sad.		So should Anonymous be anonymous??
IF they are wrong about the man accused of harrassing young Amanda Todd [and that may be a big IF] then shouldn't they be outed too? Or at least obliged to take responsibility for their actions.
I'm not saying they didn't do something vital and praiseworthy, but at least Mr Chen above has put his name [I assume it's the correct one!] behind his actions.
PS fulhamfan is my real name - sad.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 12:49AM20 October 2012 12:49AM
I just read this story from Raw Story in the US. Oddly enough, I was censored from Raw Story the same time that my newspaper , Bangor Daily News also censored me. Seems as if the new tea party governor had a hired possee who just loved him. Bunch of crazies who spew hate and also hate a fact. Raw Story and Bangor Daily News both use Disqus. This all happened about the same time the Pentagon spent a lot of money for cyber security. Cyber security seems to entail paying a lot of idiots to spew hate. The Guardian allows much more freedom of discussion than so called US progressive websites who all dislike and censor for writing aboutI just read this story from Raw Story in the US. Oddly enough, I was censored from Raw Story the same time that my newspaper , Bangor Daily News also censored me. Seems as if the new tea party governor had a hired possee who just loved him. Bunch of crazies who spew hate and also hate a fact. Raw Story and Bangor Daily News both use Disqus. This all happened about the same time the Pentagon spent a lot of money for cyber security. Cyber security seems to entail paying a lot of idiots to spew hate. The Guardian allows much more freedom of discussion than so called US progressive websites who all dislike and censor for writing about
1) election theft
2) 9/11 discussion on anything which isn't strictly gov. issued
3) the word fascism HMMMMM		1) election theft
2) 9/11 discussion on anything which isn't strictly gov. issued
3) the word fascism HMMMMM
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 1:50AM20 October 2012 1:50AM
I think most reasonable people can differentiate between the need for privacy for those who wish to express unpopular political views or speak truth to power and the desire for anonymity from those who seek to victimize women and children. We are quite capable of differentiating between those 2 different acts in real life. There's no reason why existing laws cannot be extended in the virtual world.I think most reasonable people can differentiate between the need for privacy for those who wish to express unpopular political views or speak truth to power and the desire for anonymity from those who seek to victimize women and children. We are quite capable of differentiating between those 2 different acts in real life. There's no reason why existing laws cannot be extended in the virtual world.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 2:17AM20 October 2012 2:17AM
There is a subset of humans who are vile, disgusting, and have no compassion for others of their species. They find it amusing to do evil to others and are especially emboldened to do harm thanks to anonymity. I, for one, like the idea of a member of Anonymous using their skills to avenge those who have been victimized by trolls. In my opinion, the Anonymous who intervened on Todd's behalf has my support. Zero tolerance on bullies.There is a subset of humans who are vile, disgusting, and have no compassion for others of their species. They find it amusing to do evil to others and are especially emboldened to do harm thanks to anonymity. I, for one, like the idea of a member of Anonymous using their skills to avenge those who have been victimized by trolls. In my opinion, the Anonymous who intervened on Todd's behalf has my support. Zero tolerance on bullies.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 3:15AM20 October 2012 3:15AM
Sooner or later Anonymous or other vigilante groups will target or think he/she is responsible for online bullying by accident.Sooner or later Anonymous or other vigilante groups will target or think he/she is responsible for online bullying by accident.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 3:18AM20 October 2012 3:18AM
*I mean outing a completely innocent person accusing of online bullying. Watch out, vigilante groups, don't get drunk on power and becoming the abusive force that you're accusing others of*I mean outing a completely innocent person accusing of online bullying. Watch out, vigilante groups, don't get drunk on power and becoming the abusive force that you're accusing others of
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 3:32AM20 October 2012 3:32AM
offensivetoyou said:offensivetoyou said:
Look at this article. You'd never know that huge numbers of reddit users, and many, many others, are outraged about the violation of anonymity. Think about the effects of "moderation" - a euphimism for censorship. Would you ever know about such views if Guardian moderators had unlimited powers?Look at this article. You'd never know that huge numbers of reddit users, and many, many others, are outraged about the violation of anonymity. Think about the effects of "moderation" - a euphimism for censorship. Would you ever know about such views if Guardian moderators had unlimited powers?
You are quite wrong. The Guardian or any other site has a perfect right to moderate things in any way they see fit. It's not censorship. The site belongs to them. They can invite or exclude who they like, just like you can choose who comes into your home.You are quite wrong. The Guardian or any other site has a perfect right to moderate things in any way they see fit. It's not censorship. The site belongs to them. They can invite or exclude who they like, just like you can choose who comes into your home.
It's a commercial newspaper. If the Guardian allows any abuse however unpleasant, then it's going to be just left with these unpleasant people, because readers such as myself who find it offensive will stop reading, and then the paper will go bankrupt and disappear. In fact, I think that this is the actual goal of some of the (overwhelmingly American) rightwingers who hate the liberal ethos of the Guardian, yet post here regularly.It's a commercial newspaper. If the Guardian allows any abuse however unpleasant, then it's going to be just left with these unpleasant people, because readers such as myself who find it offensive will stop reading, and then the paper will go bankrupt and disappear. In fact, I think that this is the actual goal of some of the (overwhelmingly American) rightwingers who hate the liberal ethos of the Guardian, yet post here regularly.
The Guardian has not merely a right, but a duty to defend certain standards of decency, and it's up to the paper to decide what these are.The Guardian has not merely a right, but a duty to defend certain standards of decency, and it's up to the paper to decide what these are.
If you want the right to post whatever you like, then it's easy to create your own home page or blog, and hope to attract people who wish to read your stuff.If you want the right to post whatever you like, then it's easy to create your own home page or blog, and hope to attract people who wish to read your stuff.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 6:19AM20 October 2012 6:19AM
Complete BS. ALL of those networks having blocking tools. It is literally as easy as the push of a button to forever be rid of someone you never want to see again. Furthemore, it is NOT the responsibility of these networks to babysit people's children,Complete BS. ALL of those networks having blocking tools. It is literally as easy as the push of a button to forever be rid of someone you never want to see again. Furthemore, it is NOT the responsibility of these networks to babysit people's children,
Where were the parents?! Why did they give their 12 year old daughter unfettered access to the most public technology ever devised? Would you let your kid skip around unescorted down any dark alley in the city at night? Then why would you let them do it on the web? No kid with proper parents even has a chance to end up in the situations this poor thing got herself into.Where were the parents?! Why did they give their 12 year old daughter unfettered access to the most public technology ever devised? Would you let your kid skip around unescorted down any dark alley in the city at night? Then why would you let them do it on the web? No kid with proper parents even has a chance to end up in the situations this poor thing got herself into.
This whole "bullying" argument is bs. Use the block button, call the police, take a week or two offline to let things settle down (as if). You don't hang yourself. And you damn sure don't let your kids play online unsupervised as though pre teens have no sex drive and always make awesome decisions.This whole "bullying" argument is bs. Use the block button, call the police, take a week or two offline to let things settle down (as if). You don't hang yourself. And you damn sure don't let your kids play online unsupervised as though pre teens have no sex drive and always make awesome decisions.
AND STILL MORE! For those who didn't keep up with the story, anonymous's little cyber saint act is bullshit. Vigilante justice is illegal, mob rule feared by our very founders in the US, because of situations like this! Anon was bugging the WRONG GUY! The person who did this crap moved and they were harassing someone who had nothing to do with it!AND STILL MORE! For those who didn't keep up with the story, anonymous's little cyber saint act is bullshit. Vigilante justice is illegal, mob rule feared by our very founders in the US, because of situations like this! Anon was bugging the WRONG GUY! The person who did this crap moved and they were harassing someone who had nothing to do with it!
There is not one innocent party in this whole damn thing. Do not make the web a police state because some shitty parents let their emotionally disturbed daughter get naked online for a bunch of pedo scum.There is not one innocent party in this whole damn thing. Do not make the web a police state because some shitty parents let their emotionally disturbed daughter get naked online for a bunch of pedo scum.
Take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.Take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 6:23AM20 October 2012 6:23AM
Well I'm glad we have you here to dictate how we should behave. Thank god an upright person like you did our moralizing for us.Well I'm glad we have you here to dictate how we should behave. Thank god an upright person like you did our moralizing for us.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 8:43AM20 October 2012 8:43AM
But which laws? The internet is international and all sorts of laws prevail in different jurisdictions. Some countries would not allow this discussion. Some countries pretend to have free speach. Which laws are you going to abide by?But which laws? The internet is international and all sorts of laws prevail in different jurisdictions. Some countries would not allow this discussion. Some countries pretend to have free speach. Which laws are you going to abide by?
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 8:54AM20 October 2012 8:54AM
None of which has anything to do with protecting idiots that troll and cause personal and emotional harm on e Internet.None of which has anything to do with protecting idiots that troll and cause personal and emotional harm on e Internet.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 9:36AM20 October 2012 9:36AM
I'm glad this anti-anonymity sentiment is finally picking up some traction. I for one can't stand freedom and democracy advocates across the globe flaunting it in the face of secret police who are going about their legitimate business of tearing out fingernails and dumping bodies in the hills outside town.
And don't get me started on those anti-drugs cartel bloggers in Mexico they keep finding hanging disembowelled from bridges. Trolls hiding behind evil "anonymity" every last one of them.		I'm glad this anti-anonymity sentiment is finally picking up some traction. I for one can't stand freedom and democracy advocates across the globe flaunting it in the face of secret police who are going about their legitimate business of tearing out fingernails and dumping bodies in the hills outside town.
And don't get me started on those anti-drugs cartel bloggers in Mexico they keep finding hanging disembowelled from bridges. Trolls hiding behind evil "anonymity" every last one of them.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 10:02AM20 October 2012 10:02AM
Reddit, the hugely popular open-source websiteReddit, the hugely popular open-source website
Reddit is not open-source, its crowd sourced, or 'User-generated news links.'.Reddit is not open-source, its crowd sourced, or 'User-generated news links.'.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 10:18AM20 October 2012 10:18AM
MacNara
The Guardian has not merely a right, but a duty to defend certain standards of decency, and it's up to the paper to decide what these are.		MacNara
The Guardian has not merely a right, but a duty to defend certain standards of decency, and it's up to the paper to decide what these are.
It has a right, but it most certainly does *not* have a duty. Like you said, if it's your blog, you can moralize or not. It ain't your duty.It has a right, but it most certainly does *not* have a duty. Like you said, if it's your blog, you can moralize or not. It ain't your duty.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 10:42AM20 October 2012 10:42AM
No, but a position of influence involves responsibility. Or perhaps you think that all opinions are equivalent,however thoughtful, or superficial, and so do not have to be evaluated. You don't recognize the status that the influence and the liabilities which a widely read newspaper has, and which confers upon it the need for integrity. Unlike a few anonymous bloggers.No, but a position of influence involves responsibility. Or perhaps you think that all opinions are equivalent,however thoughtful, or superficial, and so do not have to be evaluated. You don't recognize the status that the influence and the liabilities which a widely read newspaper has, and which confers upon it the need for integrity. Unlike a few anonymous bloggers.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 10:53AM20 October 2012 10:53AM
tenire
No, but a position of influence involves responsibility. Or perhaps you think		tenire
No, but a position of influence involves responsibility. Or perhaps you think
It only involves as much responsibility as you have decided to invest. No more. No less. What I think of whether people act responsibly or not is entirely irrelevant. There is no *duty*, other than when the sense of duty itself is also sourced in moralizing.It only involves as much responsibility as you have decided to invest. No more. No less. What I think of whether people act responsibly or not is entirely irrelevant. There is no *duty*, other than when the sense of duty itself is also sourced in moralizing.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 10:57AM20 October 2012 10:57AM
There is a big difference between a fake blogger, such as the the Syrian lesbian teenager who so spectacularly and easily fooled The Guardian, and people using the internet to intimidate, threaten or frighten specific individuals or groups, post obscene material or otherwise break existing law.There is a big difference between a fake blogger, such as the the Syrian lesbian teenager who so spectacularly and easily fooled The Guardian, and people using the internet to intimidate, threaten or frighten specific individuals or groups, post obscene material or otherwise break existing law.
This article lumps them all in together under the unhelpful and inaccurate label "trolls".This article lumps them all in together under the unhelpful and inaccurate label "trolls".
They are totally different types of behaviour.They are totally different types of behaviour.
In the case of the Anonymous "outing", apart from the irony of a group of that name outing anybody, they are no better than the person they are publicly accusing. They are similarly using the internet to hound a quite possibly innocent individual.In the case of the Anonymous "outing", apart from the irony of a group of that name outing anybody, they are no better than the person they are publicly accusing. They are similarly using the internet to hound a quite possibly innocent individual.
They should have gone to the police with whatever information they had and not acted as judge and jury. They are no better than vigilantes.They should have gone to the police with whatever information they had and not acted as judge and jury. They are no better than vigilantes.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 11:18AM20 October 2012 11:18AM
Pretty simple to guage the push for open identity on the internet.
Count the number (esp. the anti-anonymity crowd) of posters here using their real name.
Case closed.		Pretty simple to guage the push for open identity on the internet.
Count the number (esp. the anti-anonymity crowd) of posters here using their real name.
Case closed.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 11:28AM20 October 2012 11:28AM
Re: privacy is essential for human development.Re: privacy is essential for human development.
@Knowles2 > what nonsense ... Even a hundred years ago 5 people sleeping in a single bedroom was the norm, and you have zero privacy in that situation@Knowles2 > what nonsense ... Even a hundred years ago 5 people sleeping in a single bedroom was the norm, and you have zero privacy in that situation
And not a comparitvely huge amount of human development going on those circumstances. Development correlates with progression. Progression with improvement. Improvement with critical feedback. Privacy is often necessary to effect and facilitate that last one.And not a comparitvely huge amount of human development going on those circumstances. Development correlates with progression. Progression with improvement. Improvement with critical feedback. Privacy is often necessary to effect and facilitate that last one.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 12:40PM20 October 2012 12:40PM
Aleks Krotoski, author of the forthcoming bookAleks Krotoski, author of the forthcoming book
I assume that's the same Aleks who writes/used to write for the Guardian? Odd not to mention that.I assume that's the same Aleks who writes/used to write for the Guardian? Odd not to mention that.
And ironic that the Guardian doesn't allow anyone to change their user ID, so anyone seeking to 'come out' can't.And ironic that the Guardian doesn't allow anyone to change their user ID, so anyone seeking to 'come out' can't.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 12:42PM20 October 2012 12:42PM
Let's hope this does mark a turning point in the identification & apprehension of trolls and other malicious stalkers that abuse the valuable anonymity that the internet provides.Let's hope this does mark a turning point in the identification & apprehension of trolls and other malicious stalkers that abuse the valuable anonymity that the internet provides.
My family and I were the subject of a 5 year period of online abuse and stalking that included our attacks on our, then 3 year old, daughter.My family and I were the subject of a 5 year period of online abuse and stalking that included our attacks on our, then 3 year old, daughter.
The issue for us was two-fold.The issue for us was two-fold.
Whilst the identification and location of the troll was known to us, the UK police, CPS and Home Office he was located outside of the UK and was therefore beyond the jurisdiction of UK law. My understanding is that this remains the case today.Whilst the identification and location of the troll was known to us, the UK police, CPS and Home Office he was located outside of the UK and was therefore beyond the jurisdiction of UK law. My understanding is that this remains the case today.
The second issue was the troll/stalker was a well-known and respected photographer and film-maker which meant that the fashion, lifestyle and other media including the Guardian wouldn't believe that he lead this other life online despite evidence to the contrary.The second issue was the troll/stalker was a well-known and respected photographer and film-maker which meant that the fashion, lifestyle and other media including the Guardian wouldn't believe that he lead this other life online despite evidence to the contrary.
The handling of our situation was a travesty ranging from impotent e-safety organisations to a Police force who couldn't access the material that was abusing my family online because of their internal filtering system. We couldn't even email them material because it was deemed offensive.The handling of our situation was a travesty ranging from impotent e-safety organisations to a Police force who couldn't access the material that was abusing my family online because of their internal filtering system. We couldn't even email them material because it was deemed offensive.
The result was an extremely stressful period that affected every member of my household and was only abated after we hosted a national conference about digital safety that caught the attention of an international broadcaster who felt there was sufficient evidence and material upon which to make a documentary which has since been syndicated globally.The result was an extremely stressful period that affected every member of my household and was only abated after we hosted a national conference about digital safety that caught the attention of an international broadcaster who felt there was sufficient evidence and material upon which to make a documentary which has since been syndicated globally.
The documentary can be seen hereThe documentary can be seen here
Yet even today the person responsible for this online trolling, bullying and stalking remains at liberty without ever having to answer to his actions.Yet even today the person responsible for this online trolling, bullying and stalking remains at liberty without ever having to answer to his actions.
With this in mind I remain a fierce supporter of freedom of speech and the anonymity that the internet provides which is essential in many cases yet how we square these requirements for protection of this freedom whilst also protecting the victims of mindless trolls & stalkers remains an ongoing challenge but one that I believe must be answered on a global basis.With this in mind I remain a fierce supporter of freedom of speech and the anonymity that the internet provides which is essential in many cases yet how we square these requirements for protection of this freedom whilst also protecting the victims of mindless trolls & stalkers remains an ongoing challenge but one that I believe must be answered on a global basis.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 12:57PM20 October 2012 12:57PM
...the forthcoming book Untangling the Web: What the Internet is Doing to You...the forthcoming book Untangling the Web: What the Internet is Doing to You
A book about the internet. That's the funniest concept I have heard in a long time.A book about the internet. That's the funniest concept I have heard in a long time.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 1:21PM20 October 2012 1:21PM
Whoever sent those pictures of Amanda Todd to her friends etc is guilty of trafficking in child pornography. Is that angle being explored?Whoever sent those pictures of Amanda Todd to her friends etc is guilty of trafficking in child pornography. Is that angle being explored?
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 1:44PM20 October 2012 1:44PM
Since the Gruaniad definition of 'troll' = 'someone I disagree with', pushing for use of full names on fora such as this could only have the effect of restricting free speech. The first thing I did when Google demanded use of 'real identities' in profiles was to delete my profile. There are just too many nutters at large.Since the Gruaniad definition of 'troll' = 'someone I disagree with', pushing for use of full names on fora such as this could only have the effect of restricting free speech. The first thing I did when Google demanded use of 'real identities' in profiles was to delete my profile. There are just too many nutters at large.
As long as activists (e.g. animal liberationists) respond to free speech by firebombing or defacing houses & vehicles and threatening individuals, there is a real need for anonymity on the internet.As long as activists (e.g. animal liberationists) respond to free speech by firebombing or defacing houses & vehicles and threatening individuals, there is a real need for anonymity on the internet.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 2:12PM20 October 2012 2:12PM
@cactiform
Very handy for blog sites alright that, and it seems every one of them is keen to conflate "internet bully" or "internet using criminal" with "troll". Every web forum has a rule against "trolling". All it ever means is "we will delete you if we don't like what you're saying".		@cactiform
Very handy for blog sites alright that, and it seems every one of them is keen to conflate "internet bully" or "internet using criminal" with "troll". Every web forum has a rule against "trolling". All it ever means is "we will delete you if we don't like what you're saying".
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 3:55PM20 October 2012 3:55PM
You still haven't recognized the difference that a newspaper's commercial and political identity confers with it's invested and identifiable trust from it's audience, and an anonymous blog which can be no more than screaming at the wind.
This is important, because the anonymous blog does not carry any weight of prior cross reference or validation. There is no duty required from an assertion tossed out with no expectation of response, which seems to be what you say, and what the worst blogs do. .		You still haven't recognized the difference that a newspaper's commercial and political identity confers with it's invested and identifiable trust from it's audience, and an anonymous blog which can be no more than screaming at the wind.
This is important, because the anonymous blog does not carry any weight of prior cross reference or validation. There is no duty required from an assertion tossed out with no expectation of response, which seems to be what you say, and what the worst blogs do. .
[recap: the paper has a duty at least to itself, if it is retain the respect of it's audience, and it's survival. That's the difference between a conversation and a shout..or many blogs ][recap: the paper has a duty at least to itself, if it is retain the respect of it's audience, and it's survival. That's the difference between a conversation and a shout..or many blogs ]
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 5:01PM20 October 2012 5:01PM
The media is still wrongly using the term " internet troll" to apply to people who are basically online stalkers or harassing people online. An internet troll is someone who posts controversial or over the top opinions on the internet purely motivated by trying to anger people and get responses from them . It does not mean an online stalker, nor someone harassing people through the internet.The media is still wrongly using the term " internet troll" to apply to people who are basically online stalkers or harassing people online. An internet troll is someone who posts controversial or over the top opinions on the internet purely motivated by trying to anger people and get responses from them . It does not mean an online stalker, nor someone harassing people through the internet.
From wikipedia
From wikipedia

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[3] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[4] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[5] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted."
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[3] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[4] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[5] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted."
While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions and harassment outside of an online context. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families.While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions and harassment outside of an online context. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 5:26PM20 October 2012 5:26PM
@tenire
What you are describing isn't a moral duty at all if it only exists to drive sales. It's self-serving, and therefore not moral at all. In that way, blogs are more likely to be truly altruistic, as they cannot be debased by commercial considerations. You are also saying that all anonymous sources that newspapers might use are compromised and therefore not to be trusted.		@tenire
What you are describing isn't a moral duty at all if it only exists to drive sales. It's self-serving, and therefore not moral at all. In that way, blogs are more likely to be truly altruistic, as they cannot be debased by commercial considerations. You are also saying that all anonymous sources that newspapers might use are compromised and therefore not to be trusted.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 5:27PM20 October 2012 5:27PM
Freedom of speech is not just a cloak for the cowardly; one also needs to be able to stand by what one says. Michael Brutsch is entitled to say whatever he wants, and his victims are entitled to know who he is.Freedom of speech is not just a cloak for the cowardly; one also needs to be able to stand by what one says. Michael Brutsch is entitled to say whatever he wants, and his victims are entitled to know who he is.
The Anonymous case is not the same thing: in a democracy there is a presumption of innocence, and the investigation is ongoing. Put simply, they might not have the right guy.The Anonymous case is not the same thing: in a democracy there is a presumption of innocence, and the investigation is ongoing. Put simply, they might not have the right guy.
If Anonymous want to make themselves useful, they should visit Amanda Todd's memorial site and hold to account some of those snakes who continue to torment her family after her death.If Anonymous want to make themselves useful, they should visit Amanda Todd's memorial site and hold to account some of those snakes who continue to torment her family after her death.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 5:29PM20 October 2012 5:29PM
P.S. Needless to say, there is a great difference between an online troll and a whistleblower who's safety may depend on anonymity. How sad that this even needs to be pointed out.P.S. Needless to say, there is a great difference between an online troll and a whistleblower who's safety may depend on anonymity. How sad that this even needs to be pointed out.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 5:44PM20 October 2012 5:44PM
People who harass others online often do it online using a pseudonym and people who stab others often do it in the real world with knifes. Do we ban all knifes because people sometimes stab others? Or are knifes useful for buttering bread?People who harass others online often do it online using a pseudonym and people who stab others often do it in the real world with knifes. Do we ban all knifes because people sometimes stab others? Or are knifes useful for buttering bread?
(I've said similar before in regards to the blocking of torrent sites, and I believe the same logic applies here.)(I've said similar before in regards to the blocking of torrent sites, and I believe the same logic applies here.)
For every one nasty person using a pseudonym, knife or tool, there are x amount of nice people using that same tool, for good reason, where x is greater than 1.For every one nasty person using a pseudonym, knife or tool, there are x amount of nice people using that same tool, for good reason, where x is greater than 1.
If we started banning everything that had the potential to cause harm, there would be literally nothing left .... think Ghostbusters and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.If we started banning everything that had the potential to cause harm, there would be literally nothing left .... think Ghostbusters and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.
I think the Guardian should stop attempting to associate people who use pseudonyms, with people who do bad things. It's getting tiresome and boring. I would expect it from the tabloids, but not here.I think the Guardian should stop attempting to associate people who use pseudonyms, with people who do bad things. It's getting tiresome and boring. I would expect it from the tabloids, but not here.
That said, with great power comes great responsibility and I firmly believe that people who use a tool against the common good should spare a thought about the consequences of their actions before deciding to do something to harm another.That said, with great power comes great responsibility and I firmly believe that people who use a tool against the common good should spare a thought about the consequences of their actions before deciding to do something to harm another.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 6:30PM20 October 2012 6:30PM
@ duncan mcfarlane
If one is passionate about a political position one has a choice; preach to the choir or enter the Lion's Den. If one chooses the latter it is a certainty that the residents of the Den will label you a troll.
@sdylan
You think only whistleblowers need protection? That means you are against the secret ballot (for those with whom you differ) so you're certainly a lefty.		@ duncan mcfarlane
If one is passionate about a political position one has a choice; preach to the choir or enter the Lion's Den. If one chooses the latter it is a certainty that the residents of the Den will label you a troll.
@sdylan
You think only whistleblowers need protection? That means you are against the secret ballot (for those with whom you differ) so you're certainly a lefty.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 7:01PM20 October 2012 7:01PM
at the very least anyone who uses a pseudonym and harasses, threatens or stalks people online should have their anonymity taken away by the websites involved so the police can investigate and charge them.at the very least anyone who uses a pseudonym and harasses, threatens or stalks people online should have their anonymity taken away by the websites involved so the police can investigate and charge them.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 7:12PM20 October 2012 7:12PM
What nonsense, privacy is a 21st/20th century luxury dreamed up in the West.What nonsense, privacy is a 21st/20th century luxury dreamed up in the West.
Even a hundred years ago 5 people sleeping in a single bedroom was the norm, and you have zero privacy in that situation.Even a hundred years ago 5 people sleeping in a single bedroom was the norm, and you have zero privacy in that situation.
Well that's tosh, certainly the level of privacy in many countries, western or not, exceeds most points in human history. Though I'm not sure why you specifically mention the west, it seems to be pretty much consistent human desire given that almost all countries as they get richer shift in that direction.Well that's tosh, certainly the level of privacy in many countries, western or not, exceeds most points in human history. Though I'm not sure why you specifically mention the west, it seems to be pretty much consistent human desire given that almost all countries as they get richer shift in that direction.
However to compare to households of 5 to a room a hundred years ago is pretty much the other extreme of human history. Even there you're factually out, or perhaps just forgetting the current date. in 1912 such conditions had already become far less common, 130-150 years would be more on the mark. Even then it's worth noting that you would have been unlikely to have the total occupants of a room/house being there at the same time, they'd often be on some kind of timesharing arrangement as they'd be working different shifts. Still pretty bad though.However to compare to households of 5 to a room a hundred years ago is pretty much the other extreme of human history. Even there you're factually out, or perhaps just forgetting the current date. in 1912 such conditions had already become far less common, 130-150 years would be more on the mark. Even then it's worth noting that you would have been unlikely to have the total occupants of a room/house being there at the same time, they'd often be on some kind of timesharing arrangement as they'd be working different shifts. Still pretty bad though.
However if we wind back time a few thousand years privacy is going to be far more obtainable again. You look at most human communities that still live mostly in that way and situations where you have multiple families sharing the same dwelling are rare, and given that general density of humans was very low, fidning some privacy if you wanted it probably wasn't all that tricky, go for a 5min walk from your village/tribe.However if we wind back time a few thousand years privacy is going to be far more obtainable again. You look at most human communities that still live mostly in that way and situations where you have multiple families sharing the same dwelling are rare, and given that general density of humans was very low, fidning some privacy if you wanted it probably wasn't all that tricky, go for a 5min walk from your village/tribe.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 7:18PM20 October 2012 7:18PM
The media is still wrongly using the term " internet troll" to apply to people who are basically online stalkers or harassing people online.The media is still wrongly using the term " internet troll" to apply to people who are basically online stalkers or harassing people online.
From article:
"The rise of Facebook and Google ushered in an enormous number of people who hadn't previously used the web"		From article:
"The rise of Facebook and Google ushered in an enormous number of people who hadn't previously used the web"
probably a link there! but yes it's annoying...probably a link there! but yes it's annoying...
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 7:31PM20 October 2012 7:31PM
@ duncan mcfarlane
If one is passionate about a political position one has a choice; preach to the choir or enter the Lion's Den. If one chooses the latter it is a certainty that the residents of the Den will label you a troll.		@ duncan mcfarlane
If one is passionate about a political position one has a choice; preach to the choir or enter the Lion's Den. If one chooses the latter it is a certainty that the residents of the Den will label you a troll.
That's true and i often tell people that they can't label anyone who posts a viewpoint they disagree with as a troll - i was just saying that the media's definition of troll is completely different to the majority of internet users' definition of troll.That's true and i often tell people that they can't label anyone who posts a viewpoint they disagree with as a troll - i was just saying that the media's definition of troll is completely different to the majority of internet users' definition of troll.
To internet users (who invented the term) it means posting something purely in order to try and enrage and offend people and get a reaction from them.To internet users (who invented the term) it means posting something purely in order to try and enrage and offend people and get a reaction from them.
The media's use of the term is completely different and is really stalking and harassment via the internet, which is not just trolling, but morally far worse and legally a crime.The media's use of the term is completely different and is really stalking and harassment via the internet, which is not just trolling, but morally far worse and legally a crime.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 7:32PM20 October 2012 7:32PM
You are quite wrong. The Guardian or any other site has a perfect right to moderate things in any way they see fit. It's not censorship. The site belongs to them. They can invite or exclude who they like, just like you can choose who comes into your home.It's a commercial newspaper. If the Guardian allows any abuse however unpleasant, then it's going to be just left with these unpleasant people, because readers such as myself who find it offensive will stop reading, and then the paper will go bankrupt and disappear. In fact, I think that this is the actual goal of some of the (overwhelmingly American) rightwingers who hate the liberal ethos of the Guardian, yet post here regularly.The Guardian has not merely a right, but a duty to defend certain standards of decency, and it's up to the paper to decide what these are.If you want the right to post whatever you like, then it's easy to create your own home page or blog, and hope to attract people who wish to read your stuff.You are quite wrong. The Guardian or any other site has a perfect right to moderate things in any way they see fit. It's not censorship. The site belongs to them. They can invite or exclude who they like, just like you can choose who comes into your home.It's a commercial newspaper. If the Guardian allows any abuse however unpleasant, then it's going to be just left with these unpleasant people, because readers such as myself who find it offensive will stop reading, and then the paper will go bankrupt and disappear. In fact, I think that this is the actual goal of some of the (overwhelmingly American) rightwingers who hate the liberal ethos of the Guardian, yet post here regularly.The Guardian has not merely a right, but a duty to defend certain standards of decency, and it's up to the paper to decide what these are.If you want the right to post whatever you like, then it's easy to create your own home page or blog, and hope to attract people who wish to read your stuff.
MacNara, very well said. There's a balance to be struck between freedom of speech and responsibility. I also think that sites have a responsibility to moderate. The "anything goes" attitiude merely encourages a lowering of standards.MacNara, very well said. There's a balance to be struck between freedom of speech and responsibility. I also think that sites have a responsibility to moderate. The "anything goes" attitiude merely encourages a lowering of standards.
I hate this trolling crap, which is venemous and cowardly. I accept that there are some cases where anonymity when posting is necessary, but these are few and far between.I hate this trolling crap, which is venemous and cowardly. I accept that there are some cases where anonymity when posting is necessary, but these are few and far between.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
20 October 2012 7:36PM20 October 2012 7:36PM
@sdylan
You think only whistleblowers need protection? That means you are against the secret ballot (for those with whom you differ) so you're certainly a lefty.		@sdylan
You think only whistleblowers need protection? That means you are against the secret ballot (for those with whom you differ) so you're certainly a lefty.
sdylan didn't say either of those things - and the first big demands for a secret ballot came from "lefties" - the chartists - a working class, trade unionist movement in the UK in the 19th century , because otherwise it made it too easy for some employers and their hire thugs to sack or beat up people who didn't vote the way they told them to.sdylan didn't say either of those things - and the first big demands for a secret ballot came from "lefties" - the chartists - a working class, trade unionist movement in the UK in the 19th century , because otherwise it made it too easy for some employers and their hire thugs to sack or beat up people who didn't vote the way they told them to.
So without "lefties" you wouldn't have a secret ballot in elections.So without "lefties" you wouldn't have a secret ballot in elections.
Link to this comment:Link to this comment:
Reddit user Violentacrez fired from job after Gawker exposéReddit user Violentacrez fired from job after Gawker exposé
16 Oct 201216 Oct 2012
The Reddit user whose identity was revealed in an extensive Gawker exposé has revealed that he was fired from his job at the weekendThe Reddit user whose identity was revealed in an extensive Gawker exposé has revealed that he was fired from his job at the weekend
31 Aug 201231 Aug 2012
Trolls game Taylor Swift competition in favor of school for the hearing impairedTrolls game Taylor Swift competition in favor of school for the hearing impaired
18 Jan 201218 Jan 2012
Sopa support drops off as blackout protest rattles the internetSopa support drops off as blackout protest rattles the internet
18 Jan 201218 Jan 2012
Sopa blackout and day of action - as it happenedSopa blackout and day of action - as it happened
21 Jul 201021 Jul 2010
Reddit bugged at web metrics' inaccuracy - as everyone could beReddit bugged at web metrics' inaccuracy - as everyone could be
Facebook forced to tighten up privacy rulesFacebook forced to tighten up privacy rules
27 Aug 200927 Aug 2009
Users' control over personal data will be increased following complaints from Canada's privacy commissionerUsers' control over personal data will be increased following complaints from Canada's privacy commissioner
Turn autoplay offTurn autoplay off
Turn autoplay onTurn autoplay on
Please activate cookies in order to turn autoplay offPlease activate cookies in order to turn autoplay off
Edition: UKEdition: UK
About usAbout us
Today's paperToday's paper
SubscribeSubscribe
Two recent online 'outings' suggest that attitudes towards online anonymity may have shiftedTwo recent online 'outings' suggest that attitudes towards online anonymity may have shifted
When mourners arrived at the peace park in Maple Ridge, Vancouver, to pay tribute to Amanda Todd this week, few could have realised quite how widely the effects of the 15-year-old's death were being felt.When mourners arrived at the peace park in Maple Ridge, Vancouver, to pay tribute to Amanda Todd this week, few could have realised quite how widely the effects of the 15-year-old's death were being felt.
News of her suicide, apparently as a result of years of cyberbullying, provoked the internet vigilante group Anonymous to reveal the personal details of the man it says tormented her under an online pseudonym.News of her suicide, apparently as a result of years of cyberbullying, provoked the internet vigilante group Anonymous to reveal the personal details of the man it says tormented her under an online pseudonym.
It came in the same week that an American journalist outed the real-life identity of one of the "biggest trolls on the web" as Michael Brutsch, a man accused of posting sexualised images of underage girls and graphic images of domestic violence on Reddit, the hugely popular open-source website now considered so influential it recently hosted a question and answer session with Barack Obama.It came in the same week that an American journalist outed the real-life identity of one of the "biggest trolls on the web" as Michael Brutsch, a man accused of posting sexualised images of underage girls and graphic images of domestic violence on Reddit, the hugely popular open-source website now considered so influential it recently hosted a question and answer session with Barack Obama.
Does this represent a turning point in the history of the web, when the cloak of anonymity was torn away from internet trolls?Does this represent a turning point in the history of the web, when the cloak of anonymity was torn away from internet trolls?
"This has been a wake-up call to the people who participate in these online communities to really think through what their responsibilities are," said Zeynep Tufekci, of the centre for information technology policy at Princeton University. The events surrounding the exposure of Brutsch's identity, as well as that of Todd's alleged tormentor, represent a sea change, according to Tufekci. "People are realising they cannot afford to have this 'live and let live' ethos to what is posted on their site. I feel like this is a social movement on a par with the Arab spring.""This has been a wake-up call to the people who participate in these online communities to really think through what their responsibilities are," said Zeynep Tufekci, of the centre for information technology policy at Princeton University. The events surrounding the exposure of Brutsch's identity, as well as that of Todd's alleged tormentor, represent a sea change, according to Tufekci. "People are realising they cannot afford to have this 'live and let live' ethos to what is posted on their site. I feel like this is a social movement on a par with the Arab spring."
Brutsch, 49, was outed as a prolifically offensive user of Reddit. Under the user name Violentacrez, he habitually published pictures of underage girls in a now defunct section called Jailbait. As well as creating forums under the names Chokeabitch, Niggerjailbait and Incest, Violentacrez was also responsible for the reviled Creepshot series, which published images of women and girls taken without their consent.Brutsch, 49, was outed as a prolifically offensive user of Reddit. Under the user name Violentacrez, he habitually published pictures of underage girls in a now defunct section called Jailbait. As well as creating forums under the names Chokeabitch, Niggerjailbait and Incest, Violentacrez was also responsible for the reviled Creepshot series, which published images of women and girls taken without their consent.
A number of recent cases in the UK and Europe have brought to light a growing division in public opinion over the murky boundary between offensive online behaviour and freedom of speech. This month a Yorkshire man who posted an offensive Facebook message following the deaths of six British soldiers was given a community order. In July, a Welsh teenager was arrested after sending abusive tweets to the Olympic diver Tom Daley, but charges were later dropped.A number of recent cases in the UK and Europe have brought to light a growing division in public opinion over the murky boundary between offensive online behaviour and freedom of speech. This month a Yorkshire man who posted an offensive Facebook message following the deaths of six British soldiers was given a community order. In July, a Welsh teenager was arrested after sending abusive tweets to the Olympic diver Tom Daley, but charges were later dropped.
Adrian Chen, the journalist who exposed Brutsch, came under instant criticism from Reddit's moderators when the story broke. "We stand for free speech," said Reddit's Yishan Wong. "We are not going to ban distasteful subreddits [subsections]." But Chen, who works for Gawker, says the response to his story elsewhere has been "overwhelmingly positive".Adrian Chen, the journalist who exposed Brutsch, came under instant criticism from Reddit's moderators when the story broke. "We stand for free speech," said Reddit's Yishan Wong. "We are not going to ban distasteful subreddits [subsections]." But Chen, who works for Gawker, says the response to his story elsewhere has been "overwhelmingly positive".
"I thought there would be more of a backlash about the story, but people really are willing to accept that anonymity is not a given on the internet and if people use pseudonyms to publish sexualised images of women without their consent, and of underage girls, then there's not really a legitimate claim to privacy," Chen told the Guardian."I thought there would be more of a backlash about the story, but people really are willing to accept that anonymity is not a given on the internet and if people use pseudonyms to publish sexualised images of women without their consent, and of underage girls, then there's not really a legitimate claim to privacy," Chen told the Guardian.
Aleks Krotoski, author of the forthcoming book Untangling the Web: What the Internet is Doing to You, believes we are entering a new phase of the internet age, one in which trolls can no longer pretend they are not part of the real world. "The rise of Facebook and Google ushered in an enormous number of people who hadn't previously used the web, and this has seen a shift in attitudes towards anonymity. Ten years ago people were used to having many different personas – at work, at home, with their friends.Aleks Krotoski, author of the forthcoming book Untangling the Web: What the Internet is Doing to You, believes we are entering a new phase of the internet age, one in which trolls can no longer pretend they are not part of the real world. "The rise of Facebook and Google ushered in an enormous number of people who hadn't previously used the web, and this has seen a shift in attitudes towards anonymity. Ten years ago people were used to having many different personas – at work, at home, with their friends.
"During this time, fewer people used the internet and anonymity was the norm. Now that most people have an online identity on Facebook or the like, anonymity is regarded with suspicion and associated with hackers, abusive commentators and scammers." A recent example involved a man who called himself David Rose, inventing a life online as a deaf man with quadriplegia. His Dave on Wheels blog attracted a devoted audience, but soon after it became an internet hit, Dave "died". His fans were left bereft, doubly so when the entire episode was revealed to have been faked, allegedly by a 53-year-old man from San Francisco."During this time, fewer people used the internet and anonymity was the norm. Now that most people have an online identity on Facebook or the like, anonymity is regarded with suspicion and associated with hackers, abusive commentators and scammers." A recent example involved a man who called himself David Rose, inventing a life online as a deaf man with quadriplegia. His Dave on Wheels blog attracted a devoted audience, but soon after it became an internet hit, Dave "died". His fans were left bereft, doubly so when the entire episode was revealed to have been faked, allegedly by a 53-year-old man from San Francisco.
"People themselves are becoming less and less inclined to be anonymous online because it is now associated with bad behaviour," said Krotoski."People themselves are becoming less and less inclined to be anonymous online because it is now associated with bad behaviour," said Krotoski.
Chen is keen to highlight a crucial difference in the way the man at the centre of the Amanda Todd case was outed and the story that unfolded around Michael Brutsch. "What Anonymous did by outing this guy was invite a mob response, which is no more responsible than abusing someone online in the first place," said Chen, who investigated Brutsch for many months before confronting him and Reddit. He pointed out that attacking a website which provides the structure for depravity and non-consensual sexualised imagery is very different from inviting the world to attack an individual whose guilt has not been proven. The Vancouver man named by Anonymous has denied responsibilty for the bullying.Chen is keen to highlight a crucial difference in the way the man at the centre of the Amanda Todd case was outed and the story that unfolded around Michael Brutsch. "What Anonymous did by outing this guy was invite a mob response, which is no more responsible than abusing someone online in the first place," said Chen, who investigated Brutsch for many months before confronting him and Reddit. He pointed out that attacking a website which provides the structure for depravity and non-consensual sexualised imagery is very different from inviting the world to attack an individual whose guilt has not been proven. The Vancouver man named by Anonymous has denied responsibilty for the bullying.
Wendy Grossman, a technology specialist who sits on the Open Rights Group committee, pointed to other dangers if anonymity online is undermined: Outing Michael Brutsch is absolutely justified for public interest. But the Todd case is clearly complex. Say, for example, Amanda Todd had used a pseudonym to seek help from a women's forum online because she already felt too vulnerable to use her real name. She would have been entitled to that privacy."Wendy Grossman, a technology specialist who sits on the Open Rights Group committee, pointed to other dangers if anonymity online is undermined: Outing Michael Brutsch is absolutely justified for public interest. But the Todd case is clearly complex. Say, for example, Amanda Todd had used a pseudonym to seek help from a women's forum online because she already felt too vulnerable to use her real name. She would have been entitled to that privacy."
Krotoski agreed. "Privacy is crucial to human development," she said, "but it is more and more scarce now that so much of the general population is online. But what these last few weeks show us is that we're entering a new phase of understanding about what is and isn't acceptable."Krotoski agreed. "Privacy is crucial to human development," she said, "but it is more and more scarce now that so much of the general population is online. But what these last few weeks show us is that we're entering a new phase of understanding about what is and isn't acceptable."
Amanda Todd's storyAmanda Todd's story
Like many 12-year-olds, Vancouver teenager Amanda Todd liked going on chat rooms to meet people. When a stranger told her she was "perfect, beautiful, stunning", Todd was coerced into flashing her breasts for a man she did not know. That moment of naivety would contribute to her death suicide three years later.Like many 12-year-olds, Vancouver teenager Amanda Todd liked going on chat rooms to meet people. When a stranger told her she was "perfect, beautiful, stunning", Todd was coerced into flashing her breasts for a man she did not know. That moment of naivety would contribute to her death suicide three years later.
The details of exactly what happened remain unclear, but Todd published a nine-minute video on YouTube that explained her story via a series of cue cards.The details of exactly what happened remain unclear, but Todd published a nine-minute video on YouTube that explained her story via a series of cue cards.
A year after the webcam incident, a man contacted Todd on Facebook, claiming he had pictures of her exposed breasts and would publish them unless she "put on a show" for him. He carried out that threat and sent her picture to "everyone". Years of bullying followed. Todd changed schools twice but the picture continued to be circulated, possibly by the same man, to new friends wherever she went. Depression, substance abuse and self-harm preceded two suicide attempts before Todd finally had enough and took her own life on 10 October. She was 15. Police in Canada are investigating claims made by the "hacktivist" group Anonymous that a 32-year-old Vancouver man is responsible.A year after the webcam incident, a man contacted Todd on Facebook, claiming he had pictures of her exposed breasts and would publish them unless she "put on a show" for him. He carried out that threat and sent her picture to "everyone". Years of bullying followed. Todd changed schools twice but the picture continued to be circulated, possibly by the same man, to new friends wherever she went. Depression, substance abuse and self-harm preceded two suicide attempts before Todd finally had enough and took her own life on 10 October. She was 15. Police in Canada are investigating claims made by the "hacktivist" group Anonymous that a 32-year-old Vancouver man is responsible.