Shaming online abusers

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Shaming online abusers

Post by lpm » Sun Mar 01, 2020 7:00 pm

Interesting name and shame in the Bristol Evening Post.

People who've posted abuse and threats about Greta Thunberg are named, complete with their facebook photos.

The link is one of those awful local websites littered with pop-ups and notifications and videos, so a selection is below:
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bris ... rg-3897936
The people who were appearing to make those suggestions of physical actions and violence were very often parents and grandparents themselves. Some had even called for people on social media to ‘be kind’ following the death of TV presenter Caroline Flack.

The following is a fraction of the apparent calls for violence or violent intent against Greta Thunberg or the school strikers, and those apparent calls for violence or violent intent are a fraction of the general, non-violent but not kind statements made.

Kev Bennett called for Greta Thunberg to be 'Ms Trunchbulled' "Can someone grab her pigtails and ms trunchable her over the fence," he wrote. When questioned by other Facebook users on the thread, Kev Bennett said she was 'not a young child' and 'also a product of Antifa parents'.

... Stevie Ralph-Taylor's Facebook profile
Commenting under a Facebook post outlining the route of the march about climate change in Bristol, Stevie Ralph-Taylor said of Greta Thunberg 'She should be burnt at the stake!'.
... Max Poncho Morgan responded to a Facebook post about the School Strike for Climate by saying: 'milkshakes at the ready'. Max recently changed his Facebook profile to include a 'Be Kind' filter - a phrase of advice much-used following the death of TV presenter Caroline Flack.

...Ash Ashfaq's Facebook picture. In a thread on Facebook in which the changes to the bus routes and road closures was discussed, Ash Ashfaq called for Greta Thunberg's parents to physically assault her. The father of young children wrote: "Her parents need to slap her with a brick."

...Under this, another man, Spencer Trump, commented: "Send her back the way she should be in flat pack as that's what Sweden is famous for."
Why isn't this done at every opportunity? I never understand why people post abuse they receive - but then black out the email address or profile name. If people publicly post abuse, why not publicly display what they wrote next to their names and photos?
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by jimbob » Sun Mar 01, 2020 7:13 pm

I saw that and assumed that if someone was happy posting publicly, they should be happy having their views shared as widely as possible.

Of course, I guess there might be a risk of someone pretending to be someone else in order to discredit them.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
snoozeofreason
Snowbonk
Posts: 485
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by snoozeofreason » Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:30 pm

It's probably just as well that the old Bad Science forum has disappeared into a space-time singularity. I can remember comments about public figures that were as bad, and in many cases worse, than the examples in the OP. If they were taken out of context they would paint a pretty nasty picture of the old site (and possibly still would do so even in context). Of course they were directed at public figures we don't like, rather than ones we do like, but that's rather a subjective distinction
In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The human body was knocked up pretty late on the Friday afternoon, with a deadline looming. How well do you expect it to work?

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by tom p » Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:55 pm

snoozeofreason wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:30 pm
It's probably just as well that the old Bad Science forum has disappeared into a space-time singularity. I can remember comments about public figures that were as bad, and in many cases worse, than the examples in the OP. If they were taken out of context they would paint a pretty nasty picture of the old site (and possibly still would do so even in context). Of course they were directed at public figures we don't like, rather than ones we do like, but that's rather a subjective distinction
I might have known that you would misrepresent how people had written in the past. Nuance has never been your strong point has it?
Here's a spot the difference test that even you should be able to get:
one person is a teenage girl with little support who is trying to make the world a better place, the other is an adult male senior politician with an army of advisors and spin doctors and security who is demonising the poor and/or stirring up racial hatred/in other ways trying to make the world a worse place.

Can you tell the difference between such people? How one might have more power and protection than the other? How insulting or wishing ill upon one is punching up, whereas the other is punching down?
Do you even understand what that metaphor means?

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:56 pm

snoozeofreason wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:30 pm
It's probably just as well that the old Bad Science forum has disappeared into a space-time singularity. I can remember comments about public figures that were as bad, and in many cases worse, than the examples in the OP. If they were taken out of context they would paint a pretty nasty picture of the old site (and possibly still would do so even in context). Of course they were directed at public figures we don't like, rather than ones we do like, but that's rather a subjective distinction
...are you suggesting we should be calling David Attenborough a c.nt?
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:57 pm

tom p wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:55 pm
the other is an adult male senior politician with an army of advisors and spin doctors and security who is demonising the poor and/or stirring up racial hatred/in other ways trying to make the world a worse place.
Did you have a specific one in mind? There are quite a lot of them now.
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:01 pm

With an actually relevant response to the OP, I think a lot of the time, the responsibility is on individuals (twitter, say, or facebook) to self-publicise these kinds of abusive messages, which naturally carries a significant amount of potential backlash which people are afraid of - especially when those who receive the abuse tend to be more vulnerable.

But yes, it is strange how newspapers and other media outlets are so reticent to publicise the publicly stated views of idiots, when they seem to so readily publicise the publicly stated views of Emma from Birkenhead who tweeted that she's just so happy for Boris and Carrie.

Has anyone ever tried to set something up to do it on a regular basis?
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by Fishnut » Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:27 pm

I'm really pleased that the Bristol Post has done this, it needs to be done more often. I just wish the article did more to explain how vile the comments are - they've been so normalised that it can almost be read as a vox pop rather than an attempt to name and shame.

The ire that the protest has generated has been fascinating to see. The complaints about the kids missing school (by people who never bunked off, I'm sure), about traffic problems (as if driving in central Bristol has ever been anything other than a nightmare), and now about the fact that the grass on College Green got destroyed. The grass on college green gets regularly destroyed and I've never heard anything like the mass of complaints that are happening following the climate protest. It's winter, and College Green is the space where protests and mass gatherings happen. Even in summer it gets destroyed when there's been a gathering. The BBC has a long article on the outrage that people are expressing, and only at the bottom does it note that the flowers, even those growing in the grass, were avoided. And they're raising money to cover the costs of repair which isn't something I ever remember any other protest doing.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

noggins
Snowbonk
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by noggins » Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:01 pm

tom p wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:55 pm
snoozeofreason wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:30 pm
It's probably just as well that the old Bad Science forum has disappeared into a space-time singularity. I can remember comments about public figures that were as bad, and in many cases worse, than the examples in the OP. If they were taken out of context they would paint a pretty nasty picture of the old site (and possibly still would do so even in context). Of course they were directed at public figures we don't like, rather than ones we do like, but that's rather a subjective distinction
I might have known that you would misrepresent how people had written in the past. Nuance has never been your strong point has it?
Here's a spot the difference test that even you should be able to get:
one person is a teenage girl with little support who is trying to make the world a better place, the other is an adult male senior politician with an army of advisors and spin doctors and security who is demonising the poor and/or stirring up racial hatred/in other ways trying to make the world a worse place.

Can you tell the difference between such people? How one might have more power and protection than the other? How insulting or wishing ill upon one is punching up, whereas the other is punching down?
Do you even understand what that metaphor means?
Tom P: Lets put it another way.

Naomi Seibt

(If you dont know about her, sit down and relax and do your special breathing exercises, hide any breakable objects from your self, before googling)

User avatar
snoozeofreason
Snowbonk
Posts: 485
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by snoozeofreason » Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:01 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:57 pm
tom p wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:55 pm
the other is an adult male senior politician with an army of advisors and spin doctors and security who is demonising the poor and/or stirring up racial hatred/in other ways trying to make the world a worse place.
Did you have a specific one in mind? There are quite a lot of them now.
I haven't a clue who tom has in mind, despite the fact that he was responding to a post of mine. He seems to have jumped to the conclusion that I was referring to comments about some senior male politician in a position of power (Trump? Johnson? Putin? I don't know). There wasn't anything in the post to suggest that I was thinking of anyone of that nature, but if tom allowed such considerations to get in the way of his invective then, well, he wouldn't be tom.

Either way I am now curious as to whether people even remember their own abusive comments. So today's pub quiz question is ... who did tom say that they wanted to see slowly dying in a ditch somewhere in excruciating pain? Hint: not male, not an "ironic" response to something that Boris Johnson said either. It would be nice to give tom a chance to answer first, because I am genuinely curious as to whether he remembers the comment.

Of course, given that it's tom we are talking about there may be more than one right answer to the question. Full marks will be given for any correct response.
In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The human body was knocked up pretty late on the Friday afternoon, with a deadline looming. How well do you expect it to work?

User avatar
Stephanie
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2896
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by Stephanie » Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:06 pm

snoozeofreason wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:01 pm
El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:57 pm
tom p wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:55 pm
the other is an adult male senior politician with an army of advisors and spin doctors and security who is demonising the poor and/or stirring up racial hatred/in other ways trying to make the world a worse place.
Did you have a specific one in mind? There are quite a lot of them now.
I haven't a clue who tom has in mind, despite the fact that he was responding to a post of mine. He seems to have jumped to the conclusion that I was referring to comments about some senior male politician in a position of power (Trump? Johnson? Putin? I don't know). There wasn't anything in the post to suggest that I was thinking of anyone of that nature, but if tom allowed such considerations to get in the way of his invective then, well, he wouldn't be tom.

Either way I am now curious as to whether people even remember their own abusive comments. So today's pub quiz question is ... who did tom say that they wanted to see slowly dying in a ditch somewhere in excruciating pain? Hint: not male, not an "ironic" response to something that Boris Johnson said either. It would be nice to give tom a chance to answer first, because I am genuinely curious as to whether he remembers the comment.

Of course, given that it's tom we are talking about there may be more than one right answer to the question. Full marks will be given for any correct response.
Nope, I don't think we should drag old issues from BadScience here please.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:08 pm

Just about to say the same. No old issues, everyone try to be good people please.
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued

User avatar
snoozeofreason
Snowbonk
Posts: 485
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by snoozeofreason » Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:12 pm

Fair enough. I wasn't really attempting to rehash old arguments. My point was more along the lines of "He who is without sin ...".
In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The human body was knocked up pretty late on the Friday afternoon, with a deadline looming. How well do you expect it to work?

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:17 pm

Well, indeed. But there's a point about visibility there, too.

Is there a difference between abuse of Greta Thunberg and abuse of Boris Johnson? Obviously, one is a child who understands little of the world and the other is a Swedish 17-year old, but is saying you'd like to see Greta Thunberg dead in a ditch on a local news FB post different to saying you'd like to see Boris Johnson dead in a ditch on the same medium?

(Let's ignore discussions in the old place. Only terrible, terrible people went there).

(If this discussion is felt to be too much of a derail, we can hive it off)
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by lpm » Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:29 pm

The Naomi Seibt thing is amazing.

There was an X-Factor style selection process to find the ideal teenage girl - openly discussed in public. The backers (the Heartland Institute) discussed online exactly how they wanted to engineer an anti-Greta, get publicity, the messaging they'd get her to use. They released their old-white-man approach was failing.
They discovered this person with a couple of climate denier YouTubes, selected her and set it running - she is now paid a salary by the Heartland Institute. Some online journalist outlet did a little sting - pretended to be an oil company or something - and the Heartland Institute emailed them full details of their strategy to employ a teenage girl as a front.

They are now raising money out of her, parading her at right wing events and asking for money to fight the climate hoax.

And still "newspapers" like The Telegraph treat her as a genuine campaigner, printing Heartland Institute PR releases and pre-prepared interviews.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

secret squirrel
Snowbonk
Posts: 551
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by secret squirrel » Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:46 pm

lpm wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:29 pm
The Naomi Seibt thing is amazing.

There was an X-Factor style selection process to find the ideal teenage girl - openly discussed in public. The backers (the Heartland Institute) discussed online exactly how they wanted to engineer an anti-Greta, get publicity, the messaging they'd get her to use. They released their old-white-man approach was failing.
They discovered this person with a couple of climate denier YouTubes, selected her and set it running - she is now paid a salary by the Heartland Institute. Some online journalist outlet did a little sting - pretended to be an oil company or something - and the Heartland Institute emailed them full details of their strategy to employ a teenage girl as a front.

They are now raising money out of her, parading her at right wing events and asking for money to fight the climate hoax.

And still "newspapers" like The Telegraph treat her as a genuine campaigner, printing Heartland Institute PR releases and pre-prepared interviews.
She's also some degree of white supremacist. Oh well. The Conservative grift machine rumbles on. She'll be hawking nootropics soon, if she isn't already.

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:49 pm

I mean, I'm not *entirely* sure that employing the services of a German far-right anti-semite is the best move, but what do I know?
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by lpm » Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:59 pm

It's a nice little question of who's scamming who. Is she being used as a puppet? Or is she making a nice little career for herself by pretending for rich white Americans? Worked for Julia Hartley Hopkins and Miles Yiannopoulos - but can be a temporary gig. Cash in while you can, Naomi.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
snoozeofreason
Snowbonk
Posts: 485
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:22 pm

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by snoozeofreason » Mon Mar 02, 2020 4:56 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:17 pm
Well, indeed. But there's a point about visibility there, too.

Is there a difference between abuse of Greta Thunberg and abuse of Boris Johnson? Obviously, one is a child who understands little of the world and the other is a Swedish 17-year old, but is saying you'd like to see Greta Thunberg dead in a ditch on a local news FB post different to saying you'd like to see Boris Johnson dead in a ditch on the same medium?
Definitely not. Boris Johnson has done enough to make himself fair game, and I am a bit baffled as to why he is being used as a point of reference (I certainly haven't suggested that he should). But people on our end of the political spectrum don't just say nasty things about Boris Johnson. There are plenty of unpleasant comments from lefty types (probably including myself) that target public figures with much less protection than Johnson, or that target random civilians who have just said something on the internet that we think is ill-informed (without necessarily being offensive).

And of course none of that means that it's OK to be nasty to Thunberg. My suggestion would be to avoid being nasty to anyone. If the target of an abusive comment is robust enough to shrug it off then the comment does them no harm, but doesn't achieve much, and if they aren't then it's nasty. I am sure that I don't always follow my own advice though, so I am a bit reluctant to rush to judgement when others do.
In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. The human body was knocked up pretty late on the Friday afternoon, with a deadline looming. How well do you expect it to work?

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by plodder » Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:18 pm

Hmmmmmm......

I think.... probably.... that:

Revolting online comments made whilst being anonymous should remain anonymous, unless there's illegality involved.

Revolting online comments made using your own name, but only shared with friends (e.g. via privacy settings) should remain within that group.

Revolting online comments made using your own name and visible publicly are fair game for public criticism.

purplehaze
Fuzzable
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:27 pm

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by purplehaze » Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:36 pm

What lovely people highlighted in that report.

I'm particularly taken by Stevie. He looks like he drinks his own piss whilst at the same time is unable to hold it in.

How does Stevie accomplish this?

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by plodder » Mon Mar 02, 2020 7:07 pm

purplehaze wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:36 pm
What lovely people highlighted in that report.

I'm particularly taken by Stevie. He looks like he drinks his own piss whilst at the same time is unable to hold it in.

How does Stevie accomplish this?
What's your real name, can you provide a photo, and are you happy for me to send this info to the Bristol Evening Post?

Bewildered
Fuzzable
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by Bewildered » Tue Mar 03, 2020 11:51 am

plodder wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 5:18 pm
Hmmmmmm......

I think.... probably.... that:

Revolting online comments made whilst being anonymous should remain anonymous, unless there's illegality involved.

Revolting online comments made using your own name, but only shared with friends (e.g. via privacy settings) should remain within that group.

Revolting online comments made using your own name and visible publicly are fair game for public criticism.
Mmm.. maybe, I guess they have opened themselves up to it, but I still don’t particularly like it.

What about revolting comments made to a small group of regulars and many of the posters have forgotten the privacy setting mean it’s technically public ? I also think there is huge difference between posting in a group that doesn’t include Greta and posting sh.t underneath her fb post etc.

Also depends on the comments too. Some of those comments seem pretty mild and jokey, e.g. the milkshake one — I thought throwing a milkshake on farage was harmless, so not sure how I can have a harsher view about a plausibly joking suggestion that people should do it to someone I like. Others also depend a bit on the context, while it’s hard to think of a plausible context where “burn her at the stake” is ok.

User avatar
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by Fishnut » Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:38 pm

Does anyone have any information on the effectiveness of shaming people like this? I've had a very quick look in Google Scholar but I couldn't find anything particularly relevant.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Shaming online abusers

Post by lpm » Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:50 pm

Some people are immune from social embarrassment. Like a spin-off from narcissistic personality disorder - they can undergo public humiliation yet not feel it. They just carry on without a scratch on their feelings.

I suspect a lot of the people named and shamed simply won't have any reaction.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

Post Reply