Anonymous Anger Rampant On Internet

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Part of me wants to say that people like this are the exception, not the rule but the reality is that these types of people seem to be the ones that get the most attention. After all, what fun is it to report that most of people are normal, when we can focus on the few that aren’t?

One reason for the vitriol that emerges on the Web, experts say, is the anonymity the Internet provides. Commenters seldom use their real names, and even if they do, the chance for retaliation is slim. "In the [pre-Internet era], you had to take ownership [of your remarks]. Now there's a perception of anonymity," said Lesley Withers, a professor of communication at Central Michigan University. "People think what they say won't have repercussions, and they don't think they have to soften their comments."
Click to expand...
 
I think the same holds true for people in cars. They're all brave untill you start to follow them.

Commenters seldom use their real names, and even if they do, the chance for retaliation is slim
Click to expand...

Tell that to the guy in England who got killed by that guy from Germany who made some comment about a Gameboy game.
 
Turns out the guy in England was murdered over his girlfriend, but the three of them met on a game site the english guy ran with the girlfriend, they met in person and sometime later the german guy killed the english guy.

Anyway..........being anonymous is not such a bad thing if you can seperate yourself and not take anything too seriously.:D
 
In August, The New York Times Magazine did a story about trolls, some barely out of their teens, who antagonize others for the sake of "lulz": "Lulz is watching someone lose their mind at their computer 2,000 miles away while you chat with friends and laugh," one ex-troll told the publication.
Click to expand...

lulz.
 
Put the people who like to get 'lulz' from tormenting someone else into a prison cell with Bubba. I'm sure Bubba will give them a taste of their own 'torment' medicine.

Others need to seek out serious anger management.
 
I love articles that complain about anonymity on the web as a bad thing. It wouldn't be an overstatement to describe it as an absolutely essential component to free speech.

Free speech doesn't mean "free as long as it doesn't offend me", it means the absolutely unrestrained diatribe from some unknown blogger, a raving news commenter, and us right here ;)

In all reality, it isn't popular speech that needs to be protected by anonymity; unpopular speech does. It almost scared me when they seemed to refer to "repercussions" of speech as a thing that should be occurring. Completely free speech is that which one can say even the most heinous and disgusting things (i.e., like at hate rallies) and suffer no consequences for it. Regardless of how many of us don't want to hear these things, even if one person feels it necessary to parade around screaming them, we have no right to retaliate against them.

Anonymous Speech = good, especially when it denies the reader the ability to otherwise retaliate against the writer.
 
I believe Penny Arcade had a good comic on this once.


Average Joe + Internet Anonymity = Fuckwad
 
Chombo said:
I think the same holds true for people in cars. They're all brave untill you start to follow them.
Click to expand...

Yep. Like the guy who pulled a gun on me... I followed him... never had I seen someone so pissed scared in their life. ;)

It's easy to say something and not be held accountable
 
This is NOT a joke people. Internet Hate Machines are seriously problems of today. Much of the time, the problems, threads, and violence can escalate. Make sure you are prepared people! Make sure to get curtains and maybe even a dog.
 
WHAT KIND OF CRAZY BULLSHIT IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE REFERRING TO, ANONYMOUS ANGER... I MEAN, IT JUST GETS ME SO PISSED FOR NO GOOD REASON...

Like you couldn't see that one coming... and yeah, I saw the previous post, it just wasn't ANGRY enough for me. ;)

As for that average Joe fella, fuck him, and stop comparing him to me, Joe Average, 'cause I ain't no average Joe, I assure you.

CNN shows Obama with 77 Electoral votes and MacDaddyMcCain with 34... a ways to go but it looks like MacDaddyMcCain ain't gonna make it, with Sarah "I can't see like a deer in headlights but I know a Russian when I see one across the yard" Palin in tow... ouch.
 
"This is Fox News. Internet anger is a danger to all Americans and a threat to national security. Is Obama doing it for the lulz against John McCain?"
 
the internet troll types are going to piss of the wrong sort of people. you piss off somone who wrote the damn script you are using, you are likely to get your personal information all over the chat room. cell phone, address, ect ect.

best way to kill a troll
 
some of the most interesting stuff to reaad on the internet is some loser's anonymous rants.... and then the retaliation from a whole bunch of users... i think its grand... :)
 
AlcoJaguar said:
In all reality, it isn't popular speech that needs to be protected by anonymity; unpopular speech does.

...

Anonymous Speech = good, especially when it denies the reader the ability to otherwise retaliate against the writer.
Click to expand...


QFT. Think about it for a minute. What if your opinions weren't with the rest of the sheep? How would you feel then?
 
I find it funny that the article states that researchers are surprised at the amount of anger on the internet compared to real life... What reality are they living in? It seems like an equal amount of online a$$sholes to "real" ones to me.
 
this is just scare tactics to lock down the internet, so that we can regulate it, prosecute it, and censor it.... this is one of the last bastions of freedom...people in power hate freedom
 
Manaknight said:
this is just scare tactics to lock down the internet, so that we can regulate it, prosecute it, and censor it.... this is one of the last bastions of freedom...people in power hate freedom
Click to expand...

wise words sir
 
"In other news anonymous happy people leaving messages of encouragement all over the interwebs"

Just dont sound right does it?
 
Lulz? Americans, complaining that there aren't any repercussions to speech and that people can say what's on their minds without fear of retaliation?


Rooflez.

The constitution is worthless. Citizens don't even want freedom of speech. Just freedom of speech that makes them feel good.
 
KaiserWarrior said:
Lulz? Americans, complaining that there aren't any repercussions to speech and that people can say what's on their minds without fear of retaliation?


Rooflez.

The constitution is worthless. Citizens don't even want freedom of speech. Just freedom of speech that makes them feel good.
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech should only apply to those with a name. If you dont want people to know you said something then dont say it at all.

Hiding behind freedom of speech to get your jollies fucking up peoples day without having the decendy to say who the fuck you are is not something i want to see protected. Unfortunately the ones that would do something about it would fuck over everyone and lock the interwebs down so for now we just deal with it.
 
pfunkman said:
Freedom of speech should only apply to those with a name. If you dont want people to know you said something then dont say it at all.

Hiding behind freedom of speech to get your jollies fucking up peoples day without having the decendy to say who the fuck you are is not something i want to see protected. Unfortunately the ones that would do something about it would fuck over everyone and lock the interwebs down so for now we just deal with it.
Click to expand...

Anonymity is absolutely essential to freedom of speech, namely political speech. The idea is that if you attach a name to it, retaliation can occur, in terms of people -- either government affiliated or not -- can locate you and do harm to you for the political opinions you've expressed. This suppresses speech. Fear of repercussions diminishes what people feel comfortable saying, which supresses speech. The only way to guarantee freedom of speech is anonymity.

Just because you've been butthurt by a troll or two in your time does not diminish the importance of anonymity to true freedom of speech. The real question is, why is the opinion of a completely random, anonymous stranger so important to you that you rage over it? Why do you care so much about the ideas and opinions of some random troll (note that this is a large part of where 'lulz' derive from)? But again, the constitution is a worthless scrap of paper these days that carries absolutely no meaning, so it doesn't really matter.
 
KaiserWarrior said:
Anonymity is absolutely essential to freedom of speech, namely political speech. The idea is that if you attach a name to it, retaliation can occur, in terms of people -- either government affiliated or not -- can locate you and do harm to you for the political opinions you've expressed. This suppresses speech. Fear of repercussions diminishes what people feel comfortable saying, which supresses speech. The only way to guarantee freedom of speech is anonymity.

Just because you've been butthurt by a troll or two in your time does not diminish the importance of anonymity to true freedom of speech. The real question is, why is the opinion of a completely random, anonymous stranger so important to you that you rage over it? Why do you care so much about the ideas and opinions of some random troll (note that this is a large part of where 'lulz' derive from)? But again, the constitution is a worthless scrap of paper these days that carries absolutely no meaning, so it doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

Are you a citizen of the US?
 
KaiserWarrior said:
Most definitely. And I'm a tad tired of seeing people so willing to give up their rights just for some faux-security or the ability to not get their feelings hurt.
Click to expand...

Im tired of our constitution being perverted in a way to protect human scum for some false sense of freedom.
 
Chombo said:
I think the same holds true for people in cars. They're all brave untill you start to follow them.
Click to expand...

So true, so true. And yes, this is sort of the same issue. You flip someone off, you don't expect them to see your face and you most certainly ever expect to ever see them again.

Richard "The Iceman" Kuklinski is best know as the mob hit-man, but he was a man who let his job spill over into his private live. On more then one occasion when a fellow motorist was rude on the road (flipped him the bird), Richard would follow the driver home or pull them over and simply shoot them. Very important lesson. And don't forget the fellow now who tracked down a fellow forumite over a stupid DS game and shoot them. People need to learn that there can be dire consequences to their actions, even if they think that they will not be identified. Learn to keep your trap shut if you don't have something constructive to say, and if you need to get it out...see a fucking shrink.
 
Rick Romero reports : People on the internet don't use their real names, and pick on other people. Story at 11.
 
pfunkman said:
Im tired of our constitution being perverted in a way to protect human scum for some false sense of freedom.
Click to expand...

Here's a related question: did you support the Patriot Act?

The point here is that the article complains, basically, about intertube trolls and their anonymity. The problem is thus: unless they're just whining to whine, they're making a proposal, implicit or otherwise, that anonymity is bad.

Except it is not. It is required for freedom of speech.

Now, some people do use that anonymity to troll and/or flame. Unfortunate as it is, eliminating anonymity sacrifices the essential protection of anonymity for free speech, just so some people can feel better about themselves regarding said trolling.

Much like the Patriot Act, it is sacrificing essential freedoms for some false security, or so some people don't have to get butthurt at trolls. It is frightening that there exist people who would rather know who the anonymous stranger on the interwebs is that called their mom a name, than ensure that there is an avenue to express unpopular opinions without fear of reprisal or suppression. It is dangerous that they're so ready to give away such an essential element of freedom because they rage over text displayed on a web page.
 
According to the Virginia Supreme Court, it is already true. Specifically, see paragraphs 3 and 6.

Everyone can agree that Spam is undesireable. And a properly-crafted law can make it illegal without impugning on proper first amendment rights. But a knee-jerk law can very easily overstep the bounds. It is the exact same in this case. That, and the fact that "vitriol" is poorly-defined; do they mean blatent trolling, or violent disagreement over a subject? Do you trust any of our current governing bodies to do something about it in a proper and correct manner that also protects the first amendment?

Tread carefully lest you quash very important rights in your rampaging path to take care of those mean ol' internet bullies.
 
Arguing over the internet is like the special Olympics, even if you win, your still retarded :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top