BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies

Subject: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 08:40 AM

Perhaps the owners/moderators of Mudcat would like to read this article..then review the number of suicides from the Ask.fm site, where young people are bullied so badly by 'Guest/Anonymous' posters that many have preferred death to living in such a terrible world....


Time to be responsible

Izzy, lived just along the bay to me..the only child of her distraught mother, whose entire life has collapsed..She was bullied at school and also on this foul site....

ANY site that allows 'Guest' posters in is knowingly opening the doors to foul and putrid bullies, because they will use that facility to do *exactly* that, over and over and over...without thought, care or concern for the outcome of their actions....


The Izzy Dix Anti-Bullying Memorial Page - Facebook

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 08:41 AM

'this foul site' pertains to Ask.fm, by the way, just to clarify.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 09:25 AM

Oh, no- its back with more of the usual nonsense.

Liz, there's a very simple solution:

STAY OFF THE USELESS, SELF SERVING AND NARCISSISTIC "SOCIAL NETWORKING"[sic] SITES.

Or, are you just whining about THIS site because people are more than fed up with your crap and have repeatedly told you so?

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 10:39 AM

Fed up with yours too, Greg, but that hasn't stopped you either.

The foul site apparently requires membership.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 12:33 PM

No, Greg...I sat next to some of Izzy's Mum's friends the other day, whilst talking to our local MP, about how to get the brothers who own this site to take notice of the many parents who now have NO children...

Izzy's Mum has moved up country now, fled the house the night she found her beloved daughter hanging, now lives with her own mother, sleeps in her bed too, wakes up screaming for all the bullies to leave her precious daughter alone...

She's in a very bad way.

She started the page in memory of her child, to try and change the WORLD, not just the UK....

Adrian, our MP, is going to ask the Education Minister and Nick Clegg, the Deputy PM if they'll meet with us to stop the bullying exam system which is putting such grave pressure on our youngsters...to get Kindness, Compassion, Empathy and Sympathy being taught in schools...and to try to get ASK.fm either blocked from the UK, or taken down entirely..

The brothers who own it are Russian, I believe...and don't give a damn it would seem, boasting of their membership numbers going up with each suicide....

Nice guys, huh?

Hope that satisfies you....and thank you for demonstrating the bullying tactics I am talking about it.

Lizzie, not an 'it', but a deeply concerned and passionate mother, woman and member of the species called Humans, who are, so sadly, rapidly losing their Humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 12:55 PM

I am in agreement with you Lizzie, but if the membership will not stand up to the abusers, what can you expect admin to do?
It would be a continual battleground and they are unpaid volunteers I believe.

Most of the people who came to this section for serious discussion have left and "below the line" seems to have become an infantile playground for trolls.

I've been in Hatfield for the past week collecting some racing trophys and catching up with old friends....it was great...no computers, just real genuine greyhound enthusiasts. I didn't even miss this place!

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 01:41 PM

I agree. Bullying should be stopped. I have seen first hand the devastation it can cause, particularly amongst youngsters. But who defines who is the bully and who is being bullied? Who says whether an argument is bullying or, simply, a disagreement? I cannot. I don't know if the unpaid volunteers here are qualified in that field either.

This article is an interesting insight into how the 'hidden bully' works. Their behaviour can include any of the following "Hidden traits":

1.Charming
2.Obsessed with image
3.Distorts truth and reality
4.Evasive
5.Plays the victim
6.Self-righteous
7.Pompous
8.Hypocritical
9.Two-faced
10.Rumor-monger
11.Passive-aggressive
12.Pretends to care

To be honest, I have seen far more of these traits displayed here on Mudcat than I have of the archetypal bully and I do not know who is the bully and who is being bullied at times. I am pretty sure that it is not as prolific here on Mudcat as some would have us believe. Bullying is not about disagreements. Bullying is not about vehemently standing up to the injustice or the supporters of it. It is about control and manipulation of others.

I find it very worrying that someone who finds themselves in disagreement with another could very easily cry 'bully' and get their fellow poster banned, fined or whatever punishment they deem fit. It would very quickly become as easy to play the bully card as it is to cry racist or sexist improperly. And that will only ever lead to a dilution of the genuine victims case.

Of course it is a tragedy that anyone has died. Of course we should do all we can to help prevent it. But let us not become blind to the fact that unqualified interference may only lead to the situation becoming worse rather than better.

Just my two pen'urth.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 02:57 PM

Fed up with yours too, Greg,

Fed up with my WHAT precisely, Jeri? Please be specific.

Or are you obliquely referring to my disinclination to suffer self-serving, narcissistic fools?

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 03:54 PM

What a collection of cookware!

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 04:00 PM

You sure do "suffer" them. You seem to come here to seek them out. I can't see that you post about anything other than what you despise. Maybe I just missed it? It's not just you, though. There appear to be quite a few people who come to Mudcat to go after whom, or what, they hate, and don't really like anything about the place.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 05:03 PM

Jeri: You sure do "suffer" them.

No, not in the least. Please provide evidence to support this assertion.

Jeri: You seem to come here to seek them out.

Not at all. I come here, as I have done for more than a decade, because most of the folks who post are interesting & present interesting & germaine information & because I like to read the "above the line" music threads to learn tho I often have nothing of substance to contribute. In fact I am rather more than fond of Mudcat "the place".

Calling out the self-serving, narcissistic, know-all assholes who from time to time infest "the place" and/or pointing out the idiocies of those who choose to believe in arrant nonsense for the idiots they are is something else entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 06:02 PM

"Bullying" is sustained personal attacks on other members OR non members, most of the list supplied by Dave, one of our new "messiahs",are simply slightly devious debating tactics.
This forum is almost wholly comprised of "grown ups", who should be capable of debating any subject without resort to personal abuse.
The personal abuse we see here would not be tolerated a few years ago, because most of the membership would stand against it and the moderators would feel they had the support of the majority of the membership.
In my opinion, the abuse is perpetrated mainly by UKers, a small group of whom would like to run the place in their own image and if this is not possible, to see the discussion forum closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 06:08 PM

That's right Pharoah - the moderators are all wusses.

And its all the fault of those dastardly posters from Blighty.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 06:33 PM

So, Ake, you make a post decrying personal attacks by making a personal attack on me? Sorry, but I don't really see the sense in that.

Bullying, as I said earlier, is about control and manipulation. The list 'supplied by Dave' was in fact a direct and very relevant cut from the article I linked to. I don't understand the rest of your comment I'm afraid but rather than labour the point here why not stick to the point of the thread rather than take yet another opportunity to 'have a go' at the moderators?

Up to you of course.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 04:23 AM

Dave....I don't use personal abuse.
The moderators have an impossible job, if not supported by the bulk of the membership. Everyone of us who are here for adult discussion should condemn such behaviour, but when cursing directly at other members, death wishes ect are expressed, most of the membership scurries off to hide, leaving the mods to face a barrage of abuse.

If we want a grown up forum, where any subject can be discussed then we have to do a bit of moderation of our own.

If we are too cowardly to do so, we deserve the "trolls playground" that this section has become.

The list was supplied by you Dave and the "Messiah" bit was meant as a joke with no malice intended.....you do use the word rather a lot? :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 04:54 AM

You still here?

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 05:17 AM

"..But let us not become blind to the fact that unqualified interference may only lead to the situation becoming worse rather than better."

Unqualified?

Unqualified in what way exactly?

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 06:31 AM

On the other hand?....perhaps what is happening here is an example of "evolution"....the dumbing down of human interaction.

I watched part of a tv show last night which has achieved a degree of popularity amongst young people in the UK.
It seemed to consist of a contest to say the word "fuck" the loudest and the largest number of times.....it made me very sad, no attempt at wit or even slapstick humour, just gratuitous swearing.

The biggest kick for the audience seemed to come when someone regarded as "respectable" or "establishment"(Eamon Holmes) were persuaded by the frenetic presenter to say "fuck".......ooooooooooooooooooooooh!!

I wonder if they had TV in the last days of the Roman Empire?

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 08:03 AM

Anything said to me, using my name, is personal Ake. I believe it is a form of abuse to manipulate the facts to suit yourself. I repeat, the list was not supplied by me. Simply repeated. Did you read the article and take note of point 3 on the list? It was addressed to me personally and I believe it was an abusive post. It is therefore, to me, personal abuse. Happy for you to chose to ignore that if you like.

Lizzie. Unqualified in that I am not trained to spot or act against bullies. I do not know if our moderators are the same. Acting on behalf of victims is therefore not within my knowledge or training and I believe I could do more harm than good.

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 08:26 AM

As opposed to Liz, who knows everything about everything & thus can do no harm.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 10:47 AM

1. The original post puts Mudcat in the same category as a social network site. I doubt I can see the comparison between this and something young or vulnerable people use in the way they use such social outlets.

2. All the threads here are moderated. Being international, it leads to cultural misunderstandings such as banter being construed as insult or insult being construed as hate, but moderators do intervene sometimes. They miss some things that people could read and be distressed at and they sometimes remove perfectly reasonable posts, but on the whole we remain aware of the Mudelves.

3. The original poster can be very abusive and the person above complaining about abuse on Mudcat posts the most offensive obscene posts of them all.

Interesting thread.

Good luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 12:38 PM

A guest here regularly refers to the US as "Dumbfuckinstan",thereby stereotyping all Americans as ignorant and stupid, this person considers himself a champion of liberalism, equality and fairness :0), what sweet irony.

This statement from the guest may be crass and insulting to many Americans who appreciate the good things about the American people...and there are many, but it is not personal abuse and does not interfere with sensible debate. He can either be ignored or, if you can be bothered you can engage him in debate. Before long his stereotyping will be shown to be invalid.

Personal abuse on the other hand, aimed at one individual, usually by a gang, can have the affect of closing down the discussion, as the victim often feels intimidated by the gang, especially if other members fail to protest the abuse.

Personally, I always denounce personal abuse used as a tactic in debate, whether I am in agreement with the abuser's stance on the issue or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 01:06 PM

Don't really know how to respond to you Dave, my post was not intended to be abusive...and I don't see how you can view it as such, as you supplied the link to this forum from a third party?

I have of course read the article, and do not share your views on it at all, the conclusions which he asks us to draw are "woolly" and unreasonable.
As I said before most of the points drawn are devious debating tactics, underhand, but hardly to be described as "bullying"

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 03:50 PM

Don't really know how to respond to you Dave

But you have. If you really don't know how to respond, then just don't. Easy.

my post was not intended to be abusive...and I don't see how you can view it as such

Abuse is in the eye of the abuse, not the abuser. Calling someone a snotty faced heap of parrot droppings is an obvious metaphor. Implying someone is less important than yourself and trying to back it up with tentative logic is serious abuse.

underhand, but hardly to be described as "bullying"

Bullying is underhand in it's nature. I suspect, although as I said I am not qualified to say, that a lot of the bullies party to these tragic deaths reckon that their remarks could hardly be described as bullying as well. Dismissing the surreptitious tactics described in the article as simply 'devious debating tactics' does not help the people who are at the receiving end.

That really is my last comment of this exchange, although possibly not on the thread. If you feel the need to have the last word. Please feel free.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 06:45 PM

Oh!...Alright then.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Fossil
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 03:11 AM

Well, didn't take long for *this* thread to fall off the rails, did it?

G'night all.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,musket
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 03:34 AM

That the best you got?

When I refer to the Bible toting tea party idiots I call them residents of Dumbfuckistan. I spend a fair amount of time in The US and picked the term up from the many who use it to describe the Republican drive for power in a less than secular manner.

So you interpret that as meaning all America? I suppose when you say gay love is perverted you don't mean gay people on Mudcat.org then? When you refer to the "homosexual act" as being disgusting, that is except fellow mudcat.org members who happen to be gay. When you suggest all gay men must be forced to register with the authorities and have forced testing for STDs, you mean all gay people except mudcat.org members?

Social network responsibility has been a huge issue. This is why, as much as free speech is important, publishing hate in the manner you do is unlawful where you and I live.

Moaning about attitude? You even manage to commit criminal acts when you bloody well post!

It would be a nice world indeed if bigotry died out but for now it remains with us and ignoring it doesn't make it go away. It needs confronting and questioning wherever it raises its filthy head.

Back in your hole worm.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 04:18 AM

So you think all people who vote in a certain way or have certain values which you don't happen to agree with are to be confined in "Dumfuckinstan"......Is that a geographical area then?
How very inclusive of you!   I'm so sorry Ian you are a "liberal" and democrat of real stature.

If you wish to debate my opinions on homosexuality, open a new thread in which I will be pleased to make my views clear on whether the promotion of a lifestyle which carries such rates of sexual disease is good for society.
In the meantime, quoting me out of context has been attempted several times before the appearance of you and your anonymous friend, and only succeeds in making the people who use these tactics look foolish.

"You still here"   :0)   Oh yes Ian, I will be here when you are long gone.....mods willing.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 05:25 AM

Dumbfuckistan???

Hmmmmm....it does have a certain ring to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 05:36 AM

Don't worry. There's always hope for you Whilstever the real person behind Akenhateon is too ashamed to reveal himself whilst calling Musket Ian in order to ensure everyone knows who I am. I'm someone who can look myself in a mirror.



Hey Joe! I reckon I first heard it by the barman in a hotel in your state. It summed up the whole GOP reactionary forces for me. (Hotel Cheval, Pasa Robles. I'm still trying to find the perfect Pinot.)

Since then, I hear it often when over in Boston. Although retired from the board, I still take an interest in what is happening to my stock and pop over when I get the chance.   Mind you, I am occasionally just as bad back when people start lauding Blair or even, Clapton forbid, Th*tcher!

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 07:19 AM

I am a lifelong socialist, I have a number of friends who are conservative, socially and politically.

Even a "pariah" as Ian believes me to be, would never categorise these fine people as "dumb fuckers", many have a much better formal education than I have.

I leave that to "committed equality campaigners" such as yourself Ian.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 08:35 AM

These fine people eh?

Keep going. The mist is clearing.... Mind you, don't let these fine people hear you say you are a socialist. They will organise a lynch mob in your honour. Yessiree! No commie scotch boy gonna pollute our soil! GBA.

I think you will find that when you use the term conservative, there's a bit of a difference between Sarah Palin and Malcolm Rifkind...

Mind you, I'd steer clear of San Fransico with your attitude too for that matter.

In fact, after I saw Location Location Location refer to Govan as creating a cafe culture, I reckon your own neck of the woods is too cosmopolitan for your liking.... They reckon it's one in ten men now. I'd start looking over my shoulder when out and about if I were you. I'd hate you to catch something. They reckon a sense of humility can be contagious..... Bigotry can be cured too. You can get eye openers on prescription.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Wesley S
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 09:19 AM

What it boils down to is that we can be bullied only if we allow it to happen to us. At some point - IF we are mature enough - we have to ask ourselves why should we give an F what some nameless faceless cipher thinks about us? It's unfortunate that many of the youngsters that use these "social" websites most often - are also the same people who are most ill-equipped to handle criticism.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 09:36 AM

Gee, Wes, ya mean these ""social networking"[sic] sites aren't the harmless, universal blessing that's gonna change the world for the better that some advocates here would like us to believe?

After all, the folks on these sites are our "friends"[sic], aren't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 04:20 PM

"Lynch mob"....surely not more stereotyping of US conservatives :00

You are a right disgrace to the "inclusiveness and equality" gang Ian.

Not all humans are ruled by their political agenda, being a socialist does not preclude me from having friends with differing political views......in fact I am much more inclusive and open minded than you are. You are imprisoned by your political beliefs.

Although a socialist, I long ago discovered that the system cannot be changed without inclusiveness and toleration.

That toleration does not of course include allowing epidemic rates of disease to affect one small section of society for political purposes.

Your figures are interesting, if unbelievable. Care to give us a source?

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 01:44 AM

So I suppose even mudcat.org can be infected by hate. Luckily, it is either ignored or challenged. I have yet to read someone saying "Yeah, you are right. Gay people shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else! What was I thinking about? "

Of course, nobody needs sad bitter old men to tolerate them. The question is the degree to which people tolerate sad bitter old men.

Not much in my case. It may be difficult to alter mindsets and everyone has the right to privately think what the hell they like. But society has limits of what is respectable and worthy of being tolerated. Hatred of sections of society based on their choice of lover or lifestyle being beyond the pail.

That said, it can't be nice to browse a mudcat.org thread and see that homophobic hate hasn't been removed. Gay members of mudcat.org deserve better.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 05:18 AM

Joe...Ian's "Dumbfuckinstan" may have a certain ring to it, but its barbed wire borders are likely to contain many people "of faith", not unlike your good self! :0).

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 08:46 AM

Bloody hell. He reckons Joe is one of the religious right now. ..... After what their favourite shock jock said about Catholics I'd be careful before stereotyping the word "faith" as one happy family!

Back to social networks... I am not a member of any but have experience of a family member getting threats from an ex partner via Facebook. This included casting lies about him to get others to take sides too.   I reckon such media is no worse in principle to verbal or other older ways of social intercourse, but the audience can be more, which can be bad. It can also be very 1 to 1, , which is bullying in a very bad way.

However, mixing the concept to Mudcat.org allowing guest posts is silly. I doubt this site qualified as such a form of media.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 06:25 PM

Maybe the point being made by the OP is that any site that allows Guest posters anonimity is allowing the chance for trolls and bullies to sell their wares unmolested. Only Liz can answer for herself but that was how I interpreted it.

For what it is worth I gave up here some while back posting because of what I perceived as unchallenged bullying. Every time I made a stand for gay (human rights) I was either disparaged or attacked by certain members for being stupid or liberally insane.

Bullying does happen here. It may be subtle but it is still damaging to the 'victim' just for opening their mouths. And it gets personal too. Eventually I had enough and stayed away. I still visit but it's been a long time since I stuck my neck out.

So here it is again... whose for taking a chop this time?

The fact remains. I am a grown woman so used my sense and left. Many people of less maturity or disposition get bullied and cannot stick up for themselves. I got so I was feared of posting here for fear of limitless behaviour by some to attack on an emotional level. Now this can be believed or not. I am sure it won't be.

But I know how I felt back then and the proof is that I am still here quietly and my posting history shows what I say....


and now I am off again

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 17 Nov 13 - 01:51 AM

Of course, you have to realise that the homophobic troll in this case isn't a guest but logs in as a member.

He is too ashamed to let his name be known (although I do happen to know it) yet makes a point of addressing those he attacks by their real name rather than their mudcat.org nickname. ...

Oh. Then complains of bullying on mudcat.org.   For what it is worth, I sent links to his hate posts to Stonewall via our local authority reporting site. They are inundated with reports sadly and I very much doubt they will follow it up. But doing nothing isn't an option. To permit is to promote.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Claire M
Date: 17 Nov 13 - 02:16 PM

Hiya,

The best thing you can do is either use your sense & leave the site[s], try hard to not put anything on it/them that'd make people pick on you, /not use social networking sites in the 1st place........

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Nov 13 - 02:35 PM

Ah Jeez, Claire, you really don't want to interject common sense and personal responsibility into the discussion, do you?

That'll ruin absolutely EVERYTHING!

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 17 Nov 13 - 05:17 PM

It should not be necessary to

try hard to not put anything on it/them that'd make people pick on you.

People who write their opinions in a decent manner must brace themselves against decent dissent and criticism. If they defend their opinions aggressively, so may the opponents. Most of us will agree to this rule but some claim that their opponents breached that symmetry. Normally, the moderators and other moderate readers do not feel it their job to judge about that. In such cases, the best advice is: Once you have made your point sufficiently clear, stop responding to the "bullies". If you need moral support, ask for it.

However, some of us, including the OP, feel obliged to fulfill a "mission" to convince the world, by shouting their opinions whenever they can, repeating the same points over and over. They should not be surprised to face massive criticism - and in the end to fail their mission, since it is not backed by decent behaviour. The above advice applies here as well, since it also helps to enhance the poster's reputation.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Nov 13 - 06:20 PM

Perhaps it shouldn't be, but in practice, espescially on FarceBook, Shitter and such like exhibitionist narcissist sites experience should indicate that in practice it most assuredly IS.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 03:41 AM

In fairness, I don't think that blaming the victims because they go on Facebook is any more right than blaming them because they go to school or live in a certain town. Face book is, as far as I can see, essential for teenagers and no-one should stop them using it. However, as I said before, disagreeing with someone is not bullying. Not all abuse, even personal, is bullying. What has happened a number of times here on Mudcat is that a large number of people have disagreed with a post. The original poster then accuses those in disagreement of bullying and 'ganging up' on them. This is completely different to the real life or cyber bullying that has precipitated the sad cases in question. Again, just my views.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 04:55 AM

It is a fact that the younger you are, the more that social networking via the internet is part of your life. Thousands of years ago, the first a use by social networking occurred. It was possibly a few grunts whilst pointing at the person to be cast out of the group, but it was there.

I doubt we should cease the power of speech as a result....

One aspect of linking such technology to age can be seen in a local NHS trust where the cost of keeping a staff forum on their intranet going was getting expensive with licence costs and regular IT support. The trust set up a forum in Yammer, which is similar to Facebook. It is also free to use and you can set up an internal network without it being dumped for all to see.

Sorted!

Except...   The old forum was used by a large cross section of staff. Yammer seems to them to be predominantly younger staff. Whilst they didn't tell me whether the figures matched to the same people as such, the percentage of Yammer members matches the percentage of staff under the age of 30.

Any wannabe HR gurus out there, I am sure there is a dissertation in it..

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 09:40 AM

Face book is, as far as I can see, essential for teenagers...

ESSENTIAL? Oh, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 10:02 AM

c,mon, Greg. Surely even you can remember far back enough to when you were a teenager :-) Was there not something that old grumps decided was nonsense, even though you know it was the be all and end all of your life at the time?

Facebook is todays pop music, football, drug and relationship rolled into one for a lot. Whether it should be is a different argument but the fact remains that it is, yes, essential, for some.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 12:46 PM

I sure can remember. However, FarceBook really IS time-wasting, narcissistic, addictive crap- recognized by quite a few folks other than old farts like myself.

For that matter, heroin is essential for some addicts, just as FarceBook and Shitter are.

Never too soon to get techno-addicts into a 12 step program so they can get their lives back.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 02:03 PM

Spot on, though, Greg. It is essential to some. That is the only point I was making! No good saying don't use heroine to the addict any more than saying don't go on facebook to some. Like we try to make drug use safer we should be trying to make social media safer.

Calling what goes on here on Mudcat bullying of the same type that goes on within the major sites will, in my opinion, do more harm than good. If the powers that be are forced to look at the trifling abuse on here, that is less time looking into more serious matters. Yet again I add that I am not a qualified social worker, abuse or bullying counsellor or any such. I just hope that I am making sense.

Cheers

DtG