Twitter Vs...

[blueinsa]

Re: Stan Collymore on Talksport

Collymore is an attention seeking ****. I'm sure if someone abuses you on Twatter you can block them.

I've heard him talking utter bollocks on Talkshite, and basically antagonising fans (I'd be stunned if Durham didn't get threats from Arsenal fans). He knows exactly what he's doing, he also never stops going on about knowing how football fans feel, therefore he must know how they'll react. Is anyone in any way surprised that he's had this abuse?

'He shouldn't have to go through that' etc, etc, etc.....

Maybe not, but that's life on Twatter, and he knows it.

My stance entirely mate.

 

[carlos tevez is a blue]

Re: Stan Collymore on Talksport

In an act of either unalloyed bravery or abject stupidty, I asked Mrs Fetlocks over breakfast if she would rather I called her a French **** on a social network website, or punched her repeatedly in the face and threatened to kill her.
After staring at me quizzically as if I really were the drooling halfwit she considers me to be, she said that being called names on the internet wouldn't bother her in the slightest, whereas being punched in the face would ruin her day.
She also added that if I so much as considered either option, she would remove my testicles with blunt secateurs without batting an eyelid.

Couple off things here - the violence you refer to is exaggerated as Ulrika was papped after the incident with no noticeable marks. Not that a slap is accetable by the way.

Secondly I understand that it is just words on a screen which maybe isnt comparable to violence however if it is hundreds of people (and thats not an exageration) giving death threats and handing out racial abuse then the matter is a little more serious than the old "sticks and stones" argument in my opinion.

Women are very adept at using makeup to cover domestic abuse, as well as defending violent partners.
I have worked with such women, and almost without exception they behaved in the same manner, as no woman likes looking like a punchbag.
That you are quick to minimise Collymore's violence speaks volumes.
Maybe she 'deserved' it anyway?
I detest racism, whether online or in society, but in no way does it compare to having a real person threaten to take your life and physically assault you.
Online death threats have never actually caused a fatality, as far as I'm aware.
Violent men kill their partners every day.

It happens about once a week, someone who's getting bullied at school then gets bullied over Facebook, this abuse gets worse up to the point of said death threats so the victim kills themselves.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

If folks get upset over what's written about them on the internet, then Wee Davey should be placed on suicide watch.
The web is nigh on impossible to police in terms of what is posted online - nobody would argue that racism is acceptable, but how does that square with freedom of individual speech?
Folk are entitled to hold racist views, whether we agree with them or not - such is democracy.
That some of these people then choose to express these opinions on a public forum is bound to happen.
If you don't want to run the risk of someone calling you a **** because of your colour, or nationality, or religion, or football team, then don't venture onto public forums, because sooner or later, rightly or wrongly, someone will do.
Probably me.

 

[johnmc]

If folks get upset over what's written about them on the internet, then Wee Davey should be placed on suicide watch.
The web is nigh on impossible to police in terms of what is posted online - nobody would argue that racism is acceptable, but how does that square with freedom of individual speech?
Folk are entitled to hold racist views, whether we agree with them or not - such is democracy.
That some of these people then choose to express these opinions on a public forum is bound to happen.
If you don't want to run the risk of someone calling you a **** because of your colour, or nationality, or religion, or football team, then don't venture onto public forums, because sooner or later, rightly or wrongly, someone will do.
Probably me.

Without wanting to go into another slanging match and purely in the interests of debate, I agree that the internet is impossible to police. But sites that are used by millions and millions such as facebook and twitter should be easy in that you must give details in order to sign up and verify these details. The internet is not above the law so racial slurs and the like should be dealt with in the same way they would in the real world.

Freedom of speech is a myth otherwise there would be pretty much no laws against racial and homophobic language.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

If folks get upset over what's written about them on the internet, then Wee Davey should be placed on suicide watch.
The web is nigh on impossible to police in terms of what is posted online - nobody would argue that racism is acceptable, but how does that square with freedom of individual speech?
Folk are entitled to hold racist views, whether we agree with them or not - such is democracy.
That some of these people then choose to express these opinions on a public forum is bound to happen.<a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/posting.php?mode=quote&f=5&p=7481379#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">posting.php?mode=quote&f=5&p=7481379#</a>
If you don't want to run the risk of someone calling you a **** because of your colour, or nationality, or religion, or football team, then don't venture onto public forums, because sooner or later, rightly or wrongly, someone will do.
Probably me.

Without wanting to go into another slanging match and purely in the interests of debate, I agree that the internet is impossible to police. But sites that are used by millions and millions such as facebook and twitter should be easy in that you must give details in order to sign up and verify these details. The internet is not above the law so racial slurs and the like should be dealt with in the same way they would in the real world.

You and I know that this simply won't happen - the courts of every country in the world would have a backlog of cases that would never be heard, and the legal system would grind to a halt if everyone with a legitimate or perceived grievance sought justice in this way.
How many hundreds of thousands of folk do you think are threatened on the web every day?
I always aim for double figures myself, but some folk are even more prolific.
You would need thousands of moderators working 24/7 to keep a lid on things, and tracking offending folk down would prove to be a logistical nightmare.
Fake Facebook and Twitter accounts are ten a penny, and what about folk who use a shared computer, or use those in libraries or schools?
Ridding the internet of racism and hatred is a most laudable aim, but utterly impossible to achieve in the real world.

 

[johnmc]

You and I know that this simply won't happen - the courts of every country in the world would have a backlog of cases that would never be heard, and the legal system would grind to a halt if everyone with a legitimate or perceived grievance sought justice in this way.
How many hundreds of thousands of folk do you think are threatened on the web every day?
I always aim for double figures myself, but some folk are even more prolific.
You would need thousands of moderators working 24/7 to keep a lid on things, and tracking offending folk down would prove to be a logistical nightmare.
Fake Facebook and Twitter accounts are ten a penny, and what about folk who use a shared computer, or use those in libraries or schools?
Ridding the internet of racism and hatred is a most laudable aim, but utterly impossible to achieve in the real world.

I agree regarding criminal proceedings. It will never happen other than exceptional circumstances but we have seen it. There was the racist joke court case and the couple who were charged over the Jane Austin bank note nonsense.

There are too many users. There are too many ways to prevent detection such as proxy IP addresses etc. However if people were made to verify their accounts by giving credit card details that charged a £1 which was then refunded I would hazard a guess that this sort of stuff would reduce dramtically.

I dont want a perfect world and dont expect it to be. Im not into too much censorship or over moderation at all. I abuse celebs on there myself. But a few keywords get flagged and the people using these are banned - i bet its not that difficult.

 

[johnny on the spot]

To be fair to Collymore's time on Twitter, he backed our mentalist vigilante hit squad when we blagged 20k charity guilt money out of ASDA, for that Halloween costume gaffe.

 

[BlueBearBoots]

very interesting debate - if you had a heated argument with an acquaintance in the pub and it got out of hand and he threatened to kill you and hurled racist or whatever abuse at you would it be fair that you would have to stay out of the pub to avoid him and therefore no longer be able to have a friendly pint with your mates? No it would not!

However on Twitter and FB, as has been said before in this thread, you can block people. As soon as you see one tweet aimed at you that isn't to your liking, you can block that account from your timeline and never read anything they post again. Should they then make another false account and tweet you just block again. Lots of Celebs, golfers, footballers block people all the time on Twitter, some name and shame the accounts they block, Piers Morgan seems to thrive on it. No one has to suffer SUSTAINED abuse on either of these sites.

Yes I do agree the abusers should be reported but don't wait for Twitter or FB to take action just block them yourself.<br /><br />-- Fri Jan 24, 2014 1:09 pm --<br /><br />

very interesting debate - if you had a heated argument with an acquaintance in the pub and it got out of hand and he threatened to kill you and hurled racist or whatever abuse at you would it be fair that you would have to stay out of the pub to avoid him and therefore no longer be able to have a friendly pint with your mates? No it would not!

However on Twitter and FB, as has been said before in this thread, you can block people. As soon as you see one tweet aimed at you that isn't to your liking, you can block that account from your timeline and never read anything they post again. Should they then make another false account and tweet you just block again. Lots of Celebs, golfers, footballers block people all the time on Twitter, some name and shame the accounts they block, Piers Morgan seems to thrive on it. No one has to suffer SUSTAINED abuse on either of these sites.

Yes I do agree the abusers should be reported but don't wait for Twitter or FB to take action just block them yourself.

PS. Even on this forum I believe there is a function to block posts from users you do not wish to see?

 

[johnny on the spot]

PS. Even on this forum I believe there is a function to block posts from users you do not wish to see?

Yes, but to actually use it carries heavy stigma in the event other users find out.

 

[BlueBearBoots]

Didn't see anything JOTS posted ;/ haha