Should Journalists Expose Trolls?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
That Troll Hunters show seems pretty damn popular overseas. I think it would be interesting to see a US version.

So while it’s easy to disregard Troll Hunters as nothing more than a ratings ploy, it could actually serve the public’s interest as a wakeup call to start taking the issue seriously and acknowledging that online actions should have consequences too.
Click to expand...
 
I take in in the High School or Jr. High School level it's really bad even at Walmart while shopping you have Trolls.
 
Yay, just like in Communist China we can have the government track everyone's activity online and force them to post with their own name, that way no one will have the balls to say anything controversial online.

That's how you promote freedom of speech, through fear culture. Say whats on your mind, as long as you don't mind having your career ruined overnight if it was politically incorrect at the time. Woohoo!
 
Ducman69 said:
Yay, just like in Communist China we can have the government track everyone's activity online and force them to post with their own name, that way no one will have the balls to say anything controversial online.

That's how you promote freedom of speech, through fear culture. Say whats on your mind, as long as you don't mind having your career ruined overnight if it was politically incorrect at the time. Woohoo!
Click to expand...

Except this isn't the government, this is a television journalist ... I see nothing wrong with this ... this is not really any different than some of the 60 minutes stories where they tried to confront people about their stories (this is just targeted at specific types of stories) ... bottom line is you are always accountable for what you say or do ... if you aren't ready to be accountable for it, then perhaps you shouldn't say or do it :cool:
 
kbrickley said:
Except this isn't the government, this is a television journalist ... I see nothing wrong with this ... this is not really any different than some of the 60 minutes stories where they tried to confront people about their stories (this is just targeted at specific types of stories) ... bottom line is you are always accountable for what you say or do ... if you aren't ready to be accountable for it, then perhaps you shouldn't say or do it :cool:
Click to expand...

Anonymous speech is a cornerstone of Democracy. One should be able to criticize those in power without fear of "consequences".
 
kbrickley said:
Except this isn't the government, this is a television journalist ... I see nothing wrong with this ... this is not really any different than some of the 60 minutes stories where they tried to confront people about their stories (this is just targeted at specific types of stories) ... bottom line is you are always accountable for what you say or do ... if you aren't ready to be accountable for it, then perhaps you shouldn't say or do it :cool:
Click to expand...
Its 1949 and you are a socialist and believe that communism is a better form of government than capitalism. You talk about it you think anonymously, but then are outed. Everyone you knew that agreed with you is now silent, for fear the same thing may happen to them.

Or lets say that its 1968 and you're gay, and you'd like to write anonymously to a gay penpal group. But then some television journalist tracks you down and calls you out for being an immoral sexual deviant after figuring out who you are. The next day after it airs you go out to check your mailbox, and neighbors are looking at you with disgust. You head in to the office and a week later you are let go as part of downsizing.

Well, maybe they should have just kept their politically incorrect thoughts to themselves. :cool:

Or maybe you could put on your big boy panties and let people talk online without going into a hissy fit and demanding that they be held accountable for the keys they poked on their keyboard. I'd much rather tolerate a few jerks being jerks than to promote a fear culture where people are afraid to say whats on their mind because the thought police will track them down and publicly shame them if it diverges from what is "correct" to think at that point in history.
 
Better not criticize Islam or Mohammed, or some "journalist" might out your identity so you can face the "consequences".
 
GlowingGhoul said:
Better not criticize Islam or Mohammed, or some "journalist" might out your identity so you can face the "consequences".
Click to expand...
That's actually happening quite often now, but you hear so little of it on all the mainstream liberal media outlets since it doesn't fit their "yay multiculturalism/diversity" narrative.

Westerners have been jailed for things as simple as heterosexual holding hands in Abu Dhabi, where its prohibited under PDA laws. Another was jailed for four years for having marijuana found on the sole of his shoe that weighed less than a grain of sugar. No, you didn't read that wrong, it 0.003 gram. Another was jailed because, while in the United States, he wrote on his twitter that his employer were douchebags... then when he went to the UAE he was promptly arrested, since its illegal to bad-mouth any UAE business. And I mention the UAE as its one of the most lenient and Westernized Muslim states. In places like Egypt, people are being arrested for just admitting that they are atheists online and being tracked down.

So sorry if I find it ridiculous that someone's anonymous opinion online is so offensive to people's delicate sensibilities that they feel the need to track the person down and bring them to justice, instead of simply ignoring them.
 
Why not? If the internet is supposed the be the weapon of choice for petulant 20-something shut-ins to harass the people who have the courage to put their name to their work then why can't it be the vehicle for destroying the lives of those who sought to troll? It's clear that personal culpability, dignity, and honour have bypassed these people so if the basic values of maturity have eluded them, maybe jungle justice won't?

Turn about is fair play.

Conservative regimes all over the world have been using the internet to track down and slaughter intelligent people anyway, why not use it for some entertainment?
 
GlowingGhoul said:
Anonymous speech is a cornerstone of Democracy. One should be able to criticize those in power without fear of "consequences".
Click to expand...

This show is focused on hate speech and attacking of individuals, not political speech ... however, if a person regularly posted about the violent overthrow of their government and a purge of a particular ethnic, cultural, or religious group I would see nothing wrong with a journalist who tried to question a person on their beliefs ... most people who are serious about those elements and not just trolling for effect would probably relish the idea of hopping on their soapbox for a TV show ;) (case in point, the recent BBC interview with the Indian rapists who justified the murder of their victim because she "fought back" ... they appeared very happy to justify their behavior)
 
Ducman69 said:
Its 1949 and you are a socialist and believe that communism is a better form of government than capitalism. You talk about it you think anonymously, but then are outed. Everyone you knew that agreed with you is now silent, for fear the same thing may happen to them.

Or lets say that its 1968 and you're gay, and you'd like to write anonymously to a gay penpal group. But then some television journalist tracks you down and calls you out for being an immoral sexual deviant after figuring out who you are. The next day after it airs you go out to check your mailbox, and neighbors are looking at you with disgust. You head in to the office and a week later you are let go as part of downsizing.

Well, maybe they should have just kept their politically incorrect thoughts to themselves. :cool:

Or maybe you could put on your big boy panties and let people talk online without going into a hissy fit and demanding that they be held accountable for the keys they poked on their keyboard. I'd much rather tolerate a few jerks being jerks than to promote a fear culture where people are afraid to say whats on their mind because the thought police will track them down and publicly shame them if it diverges from what is "correct" to think at that point in history.
Click to expand...

Free speech works both ways though ... I agree that the folks on the internet should be entitled to say whatever hateful and harmful things they want as long as they don't violate another legal attribute (Libel, "yelling fire in a crowded theater" speech, etc) ... a bomb threat is not free speech for instance (it is but it has a severe penalty) ... however, a journalist or other member of the press is also entitled to free speech as long as they don't violate those same types of laws (libel, fraud, etc) ... the show in question seems to be focused on hate speech and speech directed at causing individuals harm and not political speech ... I doubt a show would want to tackle too much political speech as many of those folks would be happy to have a bigger audience and soapbox for their speech ;)
 
kbrickley said:
This show is focused on hate speech and attacking of individuals, not political speech ...
Click to expand...

The problem with this is the definition of a troll. Before you know it we'll all be crying WITCH just to get your name. Like terrorist or communist that has been abused so often in history.
 
kbrickley said:
Free speech works both ways though ... I agree that the folks on the internet should be entitled to say whatever hateful and harmful things they want as long as they don't violate another legal attribute (Libel, "yelling fire in a crowded theater" speech, etc) ... a bomb threat is not free speech for instance (it is but it has a severe penalty) ... however, a journalist or other member of the press is also entitled to free speech as long as they don't violate those same types of laws (libel, fraud, etc) ... the show in question seems to be focused on hate speech and speech directed at causing individuals harm and not political speech ... I doubt a show would want to tackle too much political speech as many of those folks would be happy to have a bigger audience and soapbox for their speech ;)
Click to expand...


You do know yelling for in a crowded theater want even a case about free speech right?
 
Sounds like everyone's favorite TV show... To Catch a Predator!

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/08/chris-hansen-fired-nbc-extramarital-affairs/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/29/chris-hansen-caught-cheating-on-wife-camera_n_887289.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l7aq65WvXc

Let's have a TV show... To Catch a Troll. Who might that Host be? Maybe someone will (in the end) hand the man/woman host a note stating that s/he is legally bound to pay approximately $1,200 in damages to the Troll.

Life is a two way street. :cool:
 
kbrickley said:
This show is focused on hate speech and attacking of individuals, not political speech ... however, if a person regularly posted about the violent overthrow of their government and a purge of a particular ethnic, cultural, or religious group I would see nothing wrong with a journalist who tried to question a person on their beliefs ... most people who are serious about those elements and not just trolling for effect would probably relish the idea of hopping on their soapbox for a TV show ;) (case in point, the recent BBC interview with the Indian rapists who justified the murder of their victim because she "fought back" ... they appeared very happy to justify their behavior)
Click to expand...

Hate speech? And just who will define what constitutes "hate speech"?

Polite speech doesn't require protection. Speech that some find offensive does.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
Why not? If the internet is supposed the be the weapon of choice for petulant 20-something shut-ins to harass the people who have the courage to put their name to their work then why can't it be the vehicle for destroying the lives of those who sought to troll? It's clear that personal culpability, dignity, and honour have bypassed these people so if the basic values of maturity have eluded them, maybe jungle justice won't?

Turn about is fair play.

Conservative regimes all over the world have been using the internet to track down and slaughter intelligent people anyway, why not use it for some entertainment?
Click to expand...

You mean like the conservatives who run China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, etc?
 
GlowingGhoul said:
Hate speech? And just who will define what constitutes "hate speech"?

Polite speech doesn't require protection. Speech that some find offensive does.
Click to expand...

I am not sure where you are going with this. The article and the question raised was about a TV journalist in Sweden who was tracking down people to confront them about statements they made online. Are you suggesting that the government should prohibit journalists from engaging in their free speech rights to confront people for a story so that we can protect other individuals who are unwilling to stand up publicly in support of their previous statements? :confused:

I am 100% supportive of the notion that we must have protections from government interaction and control of free speech ... but I am not supportive of the notion that one person's free speech is more important than another's ... all should be free and equal or none are ;)
 
I think it's a cute idea. It'd be funny to tell some journalist "Yeah, I said it, now fuck off, faggot." after he spent all that time tracking me down.
 
Ducman69 said:
That's actually happening quite often now, but you hear so little of it on all the mainstream liberal media outlets since it doesn't fit their "yay multiculturalism/diversity" narrative.

Westerners have been jailed for things as simple as heterosexual holding hands in Abu Dhabi, where its prohibited under PDA laws. Another was jailed for four years for having marijuana found on the sole of his shoe that weighed less than a grain of sugar. No, you didn't read that wrong, it 0.003 gram. Another was jailed because, while in the United States, he wrote on his twitter that his employer were douchebags... then when he went to the UAE he was promptly arrested, since its illegal to bad-mouth any UAE business. And I mention the UAE as its one of the most lenient and Westernized Muslim states. In places like Egypt, people are being arrested for just admitting that they are atheists online and being tracked down.

So sorry if I find it ridiculous that someone's anonymous opinion online is so offensive to people's delicate sensibilities that they feel the need to track the person down and bring them to justice, instead of simply ignoring them.
Click to expand...
The real irony (read hypocrisy) is that the people calling for this are the ones you find trolling every political thread on any message board. They spout "diversity", and then demand that everyone fall in line and think and act the way they do. You want a glimpse of the diversity they want, read "A Wrinkle in Time" style.
 
Its a fine line. One person's troll is another humor or even icon. I think troll shaming has its place but reality TV is the last place for anything good from humanity.

So I'm going to say a solid no.
 
Journalists ARE trolls. They present controversial topics with the intent of inciting emotional feedback.
 
kbrickley said:
Free speech works both ways though ... I agree that the folks on the internet should be entitled to say whatever hateful and harmful things they want as long as they don't violate another legal attribute (Libel, "yelling fire in a crowded theater" speech, etc) ... a bomb threat is not free speech for instance (it is but it has a severe penalty) ... however, a journalist or other member of the press is also entitled to free speech as long as they don't violate those same types of laws (libel, fraud, etc) ...
Click to expand...
Of course they are entitled, I'm just saying I'd prefer a society in which we don't encourage and watch shows dedicated to eliminating online privacy and public shaming.

I think its retarded how the whole Chic-Fil-A thing went down for example, as something that should have been private and is a legitimate opinion turned into a televised political battleground... and I just wanted a damn chicken sandwich.
 
They need to properly report on our politicians first. I'm shocked the Hillary thing is being reported at all. The exception that proves the rule.
 
Ducman69 said:
Of course they are entitled, I'm just saying I'd prefer a society in which we don't encourage and watch shows dedicated to eliminating online privacy and public shaming.

I think its retarded how the whole Chic-Fil-A thing went down for example, as something that should have been private and is a legitimate opinion turned into a televised political battleground... and I just wanted a damn chicken sandwich.
Click to expand...

As Lafayette from True Blood said, "That ship done F*ckin sailed" ... a debate on the dehumanizing spectacle of reality TV is a whole different issue on which I agree wholeheartedly ... however, as long as we are going to allow that obscenity to continue then all the various versions of that equation are fair game, including this one :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top