Trolling irl could you a banhammer.

[Diocletian]

It seems like most trolls could get perma banned. Title makes no sense on trollpuse.

Sauce?

[.Tatty.]

if your guna kill yourself over what soembody said on the internet then wth

anyway this whole thing is ridiculous imo

just cos one kid did it it doesnt mean the odd troll would make everybody/the majority do it

they obviously didnt take the facebook/myspace story where suicide was averted by these m,ediums into account

[Gjallarhorn]

if your guna kill yourself over what soembody said on the internet then wth

anyway this whole thing is ridiculous imo

just cos one kid did it it doesnt mean the odd troll would make everybody/the majority do it

they obviously didnt take the facebook/myspace story where suicide was averted by these m,ediums into account

The issue is "causing emotional trauma" via the internet, not necessarily the whole suicide issue.


And, yes, I heard about it a week or two ago on Digg, and I agree it is a very stupid idea, but I do not believe the bill will pass.

[Memento Mori]

The bill won't make it. Like the article said, it's way too vague.

[Rem Nightfall]

The issue is "causing emotional trauma" via the internet, not necessarily the whole suicide issue.


And, yes, I heard about it a week or two ago on Digg, and I agree it is a very stupid idea, but I do not believe the bill will pass.

I don't think it's a stupid idea. You don't act like a little jerk on the internet and torment someone without a consequence. At school or even in real life if someone torments you physically or emotionally in most cases their's a consequence. All actions have a consequence.

if your guna kill yourself over what soembody said on the internet then wtf

anyway this whole thing is ridiculous imo

just cos one kid did it it doesnt mean the odd troll would make everybody/the majority do it

they obviously didnt take the facebook/myspace story where suicide was averted by these m,ediums into account

You could definitely say the same thing about High Schoolers who are bullied in real life. It isn't so stupid after it happens to you. After you just want to fit in, you just want to be left alone. It seems cowardly and stupid and yeah you shouldn't kill yourself over it. But it happens in real life of course it's going to happen over the internet.

[.Tatty.]

i was bullied all the way through high school

this is why i view this a stupid TBH

[Diocletian]

I don't think it's a stupid idea. You don't act like a little jerk on the internet and torment someone without a consequence. At school or even in real life if someone torments you physically or emotionally in most cases their's a consequence. All actions have a consequence.



You could definitely say the same thing about High Schoolers who are bullied in real life. It isn't so stupid after it happens to you. After you just want to fit in, you just want to be left alone. It seems cowardly and stupid and yeah you shouldn't kill yourself over it. But it happens in real life of course it's going to happen over the internet.

There's a difference between irl and ol. You can't really walk away irl, ol you can just close your account. I really don't see how you can kill yourself because DragonSlayerF4n44 called you a queer over the internet.

[.Tatty.]

this is why most IM providers, social networking sites and most forums have a block/ignore service

to stop these trolls

[Rem Nightfall]

this is why most IM providers, social networking sites and most forums have a block/ignore service

to stop these trolls

And you think that works? Sometimes it doesn't.

[Acnologia]

Thing is most victims are too...Traumatized? To just ignore or block the person, or tell the admins/mods. What I find ridiculous is that bullying irl doesn't land you jail time, yet they want this to? I was beaten and harassed all throughout middle school and the jerks only got a slap on the wrist.

[Gjallarhorn]

this is why most IM providers, social networking sites and most forums have a block/ignore service

to stop these trolls

And the real world has a get-up-and-walk-away function. It's pretty sweet.

And you think that works? Sometimes it doesn't.

If it doesn't work, solving the problem is as simple as contacting a site administrator with the contacts of the individuals in question, and letting them take care of things. There's also the option of having your profile set to private (in the case of MySpace and Facebook).

[.Tatty.]

kids commit suicide or self harm because of people in rl ALOT

but when it happens on the internet its a HUGE issue =/

[Acnologia]

^ That's because it's generally still unexpected, and they want to broaden peoples understanding that indeed the net can be dangerous.

[.Tatty.]

any half clever web user would know its dangerous >_<

[Grim Scythe]

This looks like it could cause a Troll flare up just out of spite.

Maybe you could also make a bill to take all intimidating words out of the dictionary, and we'll all live life like it is in "The Giver"...


I mean, it IS possible. There are laws that will get you fined if your pants sag and your boxers show..
Not that it's been enforced.

[ZeroFox]

I agree and disagree. The bill's intentions although just, the vagueness of the bill allows the severity of which it is carried out to be questionable. It should be limited to acts intentionally intended to cause the distress. Most of it nowadays is bouts of rage and ignorance. I myself have gotten mad at people before but never mean any harm. Also limiting it to services in which the acts are unblockable or intentionally done multiple times. The bill if re-written correctly could become very useful. As far as the requirements for it to be used against someone should require them to have constantly harassed or joined with others in harassing a specific person. Just one single outburst should not institute such severe acts if the intention is not bad in nature and done in rage.

[Rem Nightfall]

I agree and disagree. The bill's intentions although just, the vagueness of the bill allows the severity of which it is carried out to be questionable. It should be limited to acts intentionally intended to cause the distress. Most of it nowadays is bouts of rage and ignorance. I myself have gotten mad at people before but never mean any harm. Also limiting it to services in which the acts are unblockable or intentionally done multiple times. The bill if re-written correctly could become very useful. As far as the requirements for it to be used against someone should require them to have constantly harassed or joined with others in harassing a specific person. Just one single outburst should not institute such severe acts if the intention is not bad in nature and done in rage.

I agree with this here said.



If you are doing it with the intention of harming someone just like in real life there should be a consequence.

[Gero50]

Well I don't think it will pass. Though trolling is in fact a serious issue and no one deserves it ever. Even if it did pass free speech is our right in the Untied States and it would not go so far as someone or some group spying on people online.

[ZeroFox]

Well I don't think it will pass. Though trolling is in fact a serious issue and no one deserves it ever. Even if it did pass free speech is our right in the Untied States and it would not go so far as someone or some group spying on people online.

It would only be investigated under reports. No spying involved. And sometimes multiple reports would be required. It in no way limits free speech. If you curse someone out at school do they say oh nice use of free speech? I think not. Sometimes limits must be set. A world without laws is a world in chaos. Free speech or not the use of that speech is what determines the outcome.

[Diocletian]

Well I don't think it will pass. Though trolling is in fact a serious issue and no one deserves it ever. Even if it did pass free speech is our right in the Untied States and it would not go so far as someone or some group spying on people online.

The internet is not America. Your freedom in America does not count for the Unites Computers of the Nets.

Sometimes trolling brings out the true colors. Sometimes when trolls attack the members and admins go on lollercoasters and swear like sailors. It shows that the admins and members aren't as composed and are just a buncha gorillas when a few troll moves are brought in.

[TheAsterisk!]

Firstly, for those using cursing in high school as an example of a limit to free speech: guess again! Most kids in schools are minors, so they don't have the full set of rights yet anyway, and I don't know how it's done where everyone else is, but I had to sign a contract to the effect that I would follow defined behavior guidelines prior to enrollment. If you were free to say it before, after you sign the contract you still are, but now there are stipulations, consequences. It means you violated that contract, and the results are defined in the same contract.

Secondly, anytime the government regulates what you may or may not do (excepting 'not infringing on others' rights), it is censorship. Some is accepted, but it's usually just basic stuff like, "Don't mount a rebellion or coup d'etat or we'll wipe you out."
If, though, a company (service, message board, host, etc.) regulates the content, it is perfectly acceptable.

The bill proposed says we're not allowed to "coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person" online.
Trouble is, nobody needs to protect speech that everyone loves and is cuddly and lovable. The first amendment is intended to protect exactly that speech which is opposed, as that type of speech is what many would want to silence. It prevents the tyranny of government, the tyranny of the majority over the minority and the tyranny of minority over the majority, assuming it is followed properly.
If the courts uphold the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois, (deliberately chosen for the large number of Holocaust survivors living there) based on their first amendment protections (see here), then I should certainly hope that we all have the right, as far as the government is concerned, to be a jerk online, just as we can do in the real world, even though there are social consequences.
You cannot silence someone because you don't like what they say, or because they're upsetting people. Besides, there are already decent existing options to crush trolls; ostracize the trolls and their real life counterparts. On the Internet, you ban. In life, you don't let that annoying kid sit near you.

Lastly, as a purely practical argument, you can't get your head smashed into a locker eight or nine times over the Internet, but that happens all the time in middle schools (I've got some neat-o scars, in fact), and if one's emotional constitution is so frail as to lead one to suicide after a trolling attack, then I see no loss in losing such a person. They were bound to get insulted to death in real life eventually, too.

Big EDIT! Don't miss it!
As for other countries whose freedoms are lesser or greater than the US ( and I don't know 'cause I don't live there, so it matters little to me)- they can regulate their own citizens but not others. If one state is offended but others are not, that single state will have to just block objectionable content while the others permit it. One cannot bulldozer the others' standards.

[Nineteenth]

What's amusing about this... What really qualifies as trolling?

The term "trolling" has quickly devolved into "malicious prank" in recent years. Couple that with people who get called trolls for having different opinions.
Along side with people who assume everyone who doesn't like the same thing as them is a troll. Even trash talking can be constituted as trolling.
That offensive bumper sticker insulting any president? That can be enterpetated as trolling.

Long story short, some can see this bill as "Reverse Trolling".

[TheAsterisk!]

What's amusing about this... What really qualifies as trolling?

Yeah! And what about more skilled anglers, like Eris, for instance? Or even that Hitler avatar MP2K had for a while?
Does this also mean we can't troll the trolls anymore? Would that make us vigilantes, or what?
What does YouTube have to say about this? Nearly half their users are pure trolls.

This sucks some of the fun right out of the Internet.

[JIMBO.]

Yeah! And what about more skilled anglers, like Eris, for instance? Or even that Hitler avatar MP2K had for a while?
Does this also mean we can't troll the trolls anymore? Would that make us vigilantes, or what?
What does YouTube have to say about this? Nearly half their users are pure trolls.

This sucks some of the fun right out of the Internet.

I was under the idea, the whole point of the internets was that you get to say what you want, granted that you can take what you others have to say back,

"dont hate the player, hate the dealer or the gamer"

[[Spoiler]]

I like the concept of the bill though, that emotional harm should go as punished just as much as physical harm. Sometimes the best way to recover from emotional distress is to get an apology from your attacker or some form of punishment, but just ignoring them or blocking them doesn't always help you get over it. Emotional pain can hurt just as much as physical pain, and some people are more sensitive. Still I believe we are a far way from creating some sort of law for punishing bullies because society doesn't view it as important as physical harm. Some also think it limits freedom of speech.