Online Anonymity

[rugbyskier]

I'm a bit disappointed by this whole debate.

There was once a time being an online troll was more of an art. Posting something subtle, being subtle enough to get reactions without standing out.

Now the term has been hijacked by the media to be anyone who says something to a celebrity.

I lament the lost art of the Troll.

As I read somewhere else, it look like the media are getting trolling and flaming mixed up. Simple response for flamers - "Ignore user" on forums and delete them on FB and Twitter.

 

[rugbyskier]

Of course, the other way to respond is like one of Quade Cooper's recent replies to any abusive tweet saying "we are going to **** you over" - "We??? I didn't see your name on any team list."

 

[fatprop]

I believe the right for freedom of speech and expression trumps any problems with trolls. Trolls are just a cost that now comes with that right. As is Alan Jones and the other paid trolls.

It sounds all lovely to get rid of the trolls by essentially limiting free expression until another viable, important use for anonymous comment is stymied as well.

Because in the end the law of unintended consequences becomes paramount as politicians and their bureaucratic lackeys twist any new power to suit their agendas.

 

[fatprop]

To give you all an example of how these "elites" think this is a bit on free speech from the Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation just done by Julia's lot says on free speech.

Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation

2.24 Dr Sorial observed that, in order for Mill’s conception of freedom of expression to operate,
two central components are required
:
Citizens must have the capacity to engage in debate, in the form of the relevant critical
reasoning and speaking skills. They must also have equal opportunity to participate, in
the form of access to public forums where they can articulate their views and debate
with one another.

2.25 There is real doubt as to whether these capacities are present for all, or even most, citizens. And, even if they are, both speakers and audiences are often motivated by interests or concerns other than a desire for truth including, of course, the desire to make money, and
personal, political and religious motivations that may render truth of less importance. People
are often ‘persuaded to believe what is already dominant or what fits their irrational
needs’
35

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...3AwGs0FNr7c5y7BAQ&sig2=zyZvdQsdyvMq7qh1OktpJg.

So they reckon we are too stupid to make a decent decision and/or viable analysis and the report goes on to suggest a group of "respected" people (ie more elites) make those decisions for us.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

That's pretty typical of the attitude of the political elite, their advisers and the mainstream media towards we in the proletariat FP.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I believe the right for freedom of speech and expression trumps any problems with trolls. Trolls are just a cost that now comes with that right. As is Alan Jones and the other paid trolls.

It sounds all lovely to get rid of the trolls by essentially limiting free expression until another viable, important use for anonymous comment is stymied as well.

Because in the end the law of unintended circumstances becomes paramount as politicians and their bureaucratic lackeys twist any new power to suit their agendas.

Totally agree. I should print that whole post out and stick it to the wall next to the computer, as it sums up my thoughts succinctly.

 

[Ruggo]

How does this topic fit into the operation of the justice system? The social media stuff resulting from the murder of Jill Meagher is concerning in regards to the accused. I would hate for the trial to be compromised as a result.