Really pleased two guys have been arrested over the Twitter abuse aimed at the feminist campaigners.

Having been the target of spineless Internet goons several times I the past, it's great to see keyboard warriors aren't longer "immune."

I'm hoping it helps turn the tide of countless trolls and spiteful losers.

 

What I'd like to know though is why these kinds of investigations always seem to be around twitter posts? What about the forums, newsgroups, comments sections, etc. where it happens too?

There's no way there can be a consistent approach to this kind of crime. Seems to send out the message that you can throw abuse at people, as long as it's not on Twitter.

 

Agreed but it's a start which is better than nothing. Twitter does seem to attract a lot of warriors though.

 

I have never had any interest in Twitter,it certainly seems to generate a lot of unrest I must say.

Les

 

Pitchforks and Torches at the ready ...... let's burn the Trolls!!!!

I do agree that, in this particular nasty case, these keyboard warriors need to be prosecuted.

 

It's a rather strange form of social media TBH but we have to monitor and use it for our clients. Some are developing software to take down tweets in a sort of MI5 way...!

 

It is. After learning about its popularity, I created my account there. Straight after registering it asked me who I wanted to follow. I thought- whhhhat ??!! I mean, I didn't want follow anyone or anything, I just wanted to see what people talk about there, and join the convo, if I wanted to. I thought by this 'following' business, Twitter allows people to stalk others by becoming their followers. I'm not sure if the followed one also automatically becomes a follower of his/her follower; like 'friends' on Facebook. Then they put up their selfies to fish for attention. I mean it's good to know what virtual followers and followed ones look like, but why keep putting your fuzzy mug shots again and again to be laughed at ??? I agree Twitter is a strange media. It also uses hash tag and sic word a lot. Weird indeed.

 

We get some strange ones following our company "handle!' None seem to sinister yet though.

This place got pretty nasty for a while but seems to have really calmed down.

 

Correct.

 

It has its uses, for example I follow South West Trains to get alerts to travel issues without having to even open the browser. Following celebs though, not so sure we need that!

 

Yep, it's ideal for instant news; for example flooding or closed roads.

 

The law only seems to act on Twitter when it is celebs, sports people, certain well connected activists being abused though, or certain religions being 'insulted'.

 

Prosecuted why? It's obvious the 'threats' are not credible.

 

So what if they're not credible? You'd get prosecuted if you persistently left messages on someone's voicemail threatening to kill them, even if you had no intention of actually doing it. Or are you saying you'd be happy for some moron loser to be able to do that unpunished too?

 

It's not a real threat if it isn't credible. Besides this isn't someone's voicemail, it's an anonymous twitter account.

 

Here's a really simple way to avoid being threatened on Twitter or Facebook...


... don't use them, ever.


Works fine for me.

 

TBH the more controversially vocal you are, the more you're gonna get harassed where people can hide behind their made-up personas- may it be Twitter, Facebook or anywhere. I still don't justify internet bullying/harassment. Free speech means people should be able to raise their opinion in the best words. it shouldn't beget insults and threats from the threatened ones.

I don't think not using a site is an answer. It's like saying- "Don't ever go on the road because people get run over there by motors". Everyone should be able to use any site they like. Nastiness should be reduced by catching the threatened threateners.

If people choose not to go there for other reasons, that's fine. For example, some hate Facebook because it's another step to expose oneself to Tom, D!KK and even Harry with whatever shoite you may have on your mind. Personally, I don't mind if it's Tom Cruise. Not interested in anyone else. Some hate FB because they can't bear to see their exes showing off how happy they are in their new relationship. Someone told me that 1 in 5 marriages end up in divorce due to Facebook. Not sure if that is Facebook's fault or what.


Well, I'm not sure about that. Media attends to the stories that involve prominent personalities, and highlights them. Commoners may have received same/similar justice what we don't know much about. That's if they made a complaint to the Police. Cybercrime policing is supposed to treat everyone equally, I hear.


Exactly. If a nasty threat, even if not persistent , causes terror for the victim, it should be punishable.

 

I don't agree with your analogy. Facebook and Twitter are frivolous distractions for people who for some reason feel the need to expose every aspect of their mundane daily lives to other similarly inclined people.

Roads are virtually a necessity, albeit a potentially dangerous one.

 

the problem is that Social Media seems to be a american invention


and anyone who has ever spent time with americans or in america will know that they all seem to have verbal diarrhea

they verbalise their every thought to themselves and anyone else who has the missfortune to be in hearing distance

it is the reason their TV programs have adverts every 7 mins, because they simply can't STFU for any period longer than that

so Farcebook and Twatter sit very snuggly up their backsides, in terms of cultural fit

 

You don't have to agree with it. We're all entitled to our opinions and comparisons we make, and our right to state them in the best possible way. Social media is a 'way of life' these days; like a road to go from A to B. It's going to go more that way. Personally, I can't afford to post on different sites, I just don't have time and even inclination for it. It seriously winds me up when you are in some friends' company, and they check their mobile phone every two minutes to check who has spouted what nonsense on their Twitter/FB account. Even then, I do not think that steering clear from those sites is the answer. Put it that way, the ones who do go there do not deserve to be threatened; even when they are distracted, attention hungry people with too much time in their hands; who like exposing themselves to greater lengths to unimportant Mr. ***** and Ms. Nilly for sod all.

 

Looks to me that it is best ignored.

Les

 

The credibility of the threat is completely irrelevant as to whether an offence of misuse of telecommunications or harassment has been committed, and that's without even getting into the questions of how the recipient of the threat is supposed to know it's not credible, or, particularly in the case of a publicly identifiable figure such as an MP, of more credible threats potentially being encouraged by the mere presence of the earlier less-credible threats (both of these questions no doubt having some part in the reasons why we have these laws to begin with).

As for Twitter being anonymous, you're either genuinely too ill-informed or stupid to know better, or deliberately baiting to drag the debate down a very irrelevant side-track. Whichever it is, you're going have to find someone else to play schoolmaster for you, as I'm a long way from being interested.