Hard News: News media meets new media: Privileges and accountabilities
64 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Islander, in reply to
Also worth remembering that many of those who commit hate crimes often start out doing ‘less serious’ stuff like stalking, internet trolling etc.
Any actual evidence of this?
-
Isaac Freeman, in reply to
If we could eradicate harassment and threatening behaviour, we would still be left with the question of how to build better online communities and more meaningful connections. That was all I was saying.
Fair enough. It sounds like you're thinking of a much lower level of nastiness than I was.
-
I don’t think this has much to do with anonymity, it’s just as likely to happen on FB or some other place where people are easily identifiable.
Well, we can agree to disagree on that, in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding :)
FB may not be anonymous, but it's still not face-to-face, so the immediate effect (or rather lack thereof) is effectively the same. You're still not going to immediately see the other person get upset and angry, and to take it to extremes, you're still safe from a smack in the chops. It's still all just words on a screen.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
You’re still not going to immediately see the other person get upset and angry,
That’s what I was saying, upthread. Some people think trolling only happens if the perpetrators can hide their identities. But what I was trying to say (and I think Isaac and Russell were, also) is that trolls lose sight of the humanity of others.
Promoting decency and fellow-feeling in this medium where all we see is words on a screen is a challenge. I feel like I’ve gone on repeating myself in these comments, so I’ll stop now. I apologise if I haven’t expressed myself clearly. I don’t think we’re in disagreement, really!
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Any actual evidence of this?
Anders Breivik.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Any actual evidence of this?
Anders Breivik.
But can internet culture be blamed for what he did?
-
nzlemming, in reply to
But can internet culture be blamed for what he did?
There's an awful lot of people that can't tell the difference between causation and correlation. I see it with law enforcement all the time. For example, they're convinced that child abuse imagery is a precursor to molestation simply because every molester has viewed the imagery first. (They've also got some very odd views about Star Trek, but that's a different kettle of fish).
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
I see it with law enforcement all the time. For example, they’re convinced that child abuse imagery is a precursor to molestation simply because every molester has viewed the imagery first. (They’ve also got some very odd views about Star Trek, but that’s a different kettle of fish).
I...have to ask how you got from A to B in that sentence. What sort of odd views?
-
nzlemming, in reply to
I...have to ask how you got from A to B in that sentence. What sort of odd views
Apparently, LEOs around the world find that many individuals who come to their notice for trafficking child abuse imagery also have a fondness for Star Trek, and they posit that it's the acceptance of diversity in the ST philosophy (yeah, right. Tell it to the Klingons because the Romulans won't believe you!) that strikes a chord with paedophiles looking to normalise their behaviour/prediliction/sickness.
Consequently, they tend to look askance at someone who has their home filled with ST paraphernalia - not so much guilty by association but clearly an indicator. I swear they were relating this to me very seriously though I can't swear they weren't pulling my leg just a little, having already ascertained I was a fan of TOS.
However, a Google Search for "Star Trek" pedophilia brings up 4.5m hits and some of the first page links seem to bear this out.
-
But then if there is nothing going on then it is just a precursor for something...
init? -
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
Consequently, they tend to look askance at someone who has their home filled with ST paraphernalia - not so much guilty by association but clearly an indicator. I swear they were relating this to me very seriously though I can't swear they weren't pulling my leg just a little, having already ascertained I was a fan of TOS.
Someone needs to do a proper study on this, if for no other reason than that the media reaction would be epic. The things you learn.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Someone needs to do a proper study on this, if for no other reason than that the media reaction would be epic.
I'd love to but there's a few issues, like funding. Those with a vested interest (e.g. LEOs and governments) are quite happy to continue as they are, convinced of the rightness of their cause. Those making money from the "industry" (and those are only slightly scare quotes) are equally happy with the status quo. Those with money to spend tend to run screaming from the room if you approach the topic of child abuse imagery with anything other than a mainstream thesis, as they don't want a sniff of guilt by association.
Also, to really study it properly, you'd need to get into the subculture itself, as an observer, but it's a paranoid subculture and literature I've read indicates it's very difficult to gain the trust of the participants unless you're also participating. Which would be very problematic for the researcher as you'd be a) subject to very harrowing experiences and b) breaking the law of most countries. One of the few places it would be legal to do this sort of research without being part of law enforcement, or operating under their aegis, is Russia. And that's a powder-keg waiting to blow for all sorts of other reasons.
It's an area that needs research, I agree (and not just the ST angle) but the public hysteria around the topic (which approaches medieval witch-burning, IMHO) tends to prevent anything other than medical research. It's even difficult to find research into victims that isn't sealed by court order. Easier to demonise than understand, I guess.
Personally, I'm just as horrified by the JonBenet Ramsay subculture of toddler beauty pageants, of sexualising preteens with the clothing choices and makeup and advertising, and how complicit society is in the forming of young female minds to be uber-consumers using sex as currency. I think that has a far wider and more sinister impact (which is not to minimise the impact of CAI on the individuals involved, believe me).
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
Those with money to spend tend to run screaming from the room if you approach the topic of child abuse imagery with anything other than a mainstream thesis, as they don't want a sniff of guilt by association.
Which is a problem, because there clearly (to me) seems to be a need to establish exactly what the link is between imagery and offending against children (and things associated with it.) Imagery created *through* offenses against children is one thing, but where do you draw the line with, frex, all the stuff the Australians have come down on with cartoons/underdeveloped adults? You can't do that rationally without understanding whether its existence leads to more offending. But getting funding won't happen...or finding researchers who want to do the work, come to that; I say "someone should do a study", but I wouldn't want to be that person. (Which is true of things not nearly as disturbing, of course.)
Personally, I'm just as horrified by the JonBenet Ramsay subculture of toddler beauty pageants, of sexualising preteens with the clothing choices and makeup and advertising, and how complicit society is in the forming of young female minds to be uber-consumers using sex as currency. I think that has a far wider and more sinister impact (which is not to minimise the impact of CAI on the individuals involved, believe me).
It's sort of the same thing, though - taking people who can't consent to much at all, due to their age, and grooming them to be available for other people's consumption, sexual or not. That stuff is creepy because none of it is about what the individual kids and teens might want, it's about conforming them to what other people want from them.
-
nzlemming, in reply to
Which is a problem, because there clearly (to me) seems to be a need to establish exactly what the link is between imagery and offending against children (and things associated with it.) Imagery created *through* offenses against children is one thing, but where do you draw the line with, frex, all the stuff the Australians have come down on with cartoons/underdeveloped adults?
Yup. NZ covers this in the law by having the phrase "tends to promote or support" which includes drawings, text, computer-generated graphics and, potentially, even discussions in print, if they're of a pro-paedophile nature like, frex, NAMBLA. The presumption is that imagery leads to physical abuse (both are offences here), end of story. Also, that even thinking about such material is so wrong it must be stamped out. 'Cause prohibition works so well, y'know? I don't want to denigrate the people doing the job at the coalface because they are, by and large, awesome and they really care about their work. It's the underlying societal assumptions we need to look at but as soon as you suggest that, you get looked at funny and people start thinking you must be one of "them", if you're asking these questions. Very tiring.
Frankly, I could do the work - I think I'm strong enough to deal with the content, with the appropriate support (which is where money comes in) - but the other factors of legality and acceptability tend to make it a bridge too far to consider.
It's sort of the same thing, though - taking people who can't consent to much at all, due to their age, and grooming them to be available for other people's consumption, sexual or not. That stuff is creepy because none of it is about what the individual kids and teens might want, it's about conforming them to what other people want from them.
Well, bloody said, that woman!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.