Panorama - Online Abuse: Why Do You Hate Me? - BBC

1 Sort by date Sort by reaction score 2
Copied some posts to create a thread on this just incase it warrents it's own thread.

Will be interesting to see what they define as abuse. Is commenting on an influencers lounge decor (that they choose to share to make money) on tattle abuse? Or is sending threats at someone in their timeline on social media abuse? Currently anything an influencer doesn't like they seem to say is considered abuse and hate speech by them.
 
I remember seeing a post on tattle, a really passionate moving post, which detailed how a poster had come to end up in a huge debt spiral, which affected their lives hugely :(

They had followed an influencer and felt they had to buy items as they were shown, in order to be using the correct products for the right things (mostly cleaning and housework items, like hoovers, window cleaners etc.,).

Many others also explained how in debt they too had become and it was a huge eye opener for me personally to realise I was also being reeled in to buy certain items because they were constantly being bombarded to me in a brainwashing way.

I think places like Tattle are crucial for those who are not "sheep" as such, following a crowd, but in fact vulnerable, sad, lonely, deflated, depressed or even just simply wanting to fit in, to be able to know they are not alone, that others can see the pitfalls ahead and can forewarn them before it becomes a major issue for their bank balance and health too.
 
Yel said:
Copied some posts to create a thread on this just incase it warrents it's own thread.

Will be interesting to see what they define as abuse. Is commenting on an influencers lounge decor (that they choose to share to make money) on tattle abuse? Or is sending threats at someone in their timeline on social media abuse? Currently anything an influencer doesn't like they seem to say is considered abuse and hate speech by them.
Click to expand...
I'm getting bad vibes I actually think it could come to something ,Raab even mentioned Pritti was going through the 'bill' at the present time ,what could they do ? make people show some sort of ID for SM accounts ,it would never work .
 
Laughable when MPs themselves are called out for sending abuse I think he was named online as the mystery politician that was arrested over coercive control last year and Priti for her bullying 🙄

 
Last edited:
monga said:
I'm getting bad vibes I actually think it could come to something ,Raab even mentioned Pritti was going through the 'bill' at the present time ,what could they do ? make people show some sort of ID for SM accounts ,it would never work .
Click to expand...
It's just about the online harms bill

www.gov.uk

Landmark laws to keep children safe, stop racial hate and protect democracy online published

The Online Safety Bill will help protect young people and clamp down on racist abuse online, while safeguarding freedom of expression.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

So it'll fine companies that don't act on hate speech. But it's been in progress for years. It needs to not affect free speech but protect people from harmful content online.

Wouldn't affect tattle as hateful stuff isn't allowed and memebers of the public are allowed opinions on those who broadcast their life publicly as a job but Facebook/twitter etc might need to up their content reviewers and policies as it's pretty shocking what they allow right now. The sooner it comes in the better. Although big tech is so much more powerful than the UK government.
 
Yel said:
It's just about the online harms bill

www.gov.uk

Landmark laws to keep children safe, stop racial hate and protect democracy online published

The Online Safety Bill will help protect young people and clamp down on racist abuse online, while safeguarding freedom of expression.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

So it'll fine companies that don't act on hate speech. But it's been in progress for years. It needs to not affect free speech but protect people from harmful content online.

Wouldn't affect tattle as hateful stuff isn't allowed and memebers of the public are allowed opinions on those who broadcast their life publicly as a job but Facebook/twitter etc might need to up their content reviewers and policies as it's pretty shocking what they allow right now.
Click to expand...
Thank God for that, there’s a lot of MPs throwing their weight against online abuse today they’ll jump on any bandwagon going maybe they’ll even name some kind of bill after David Amess this is the perfect time to push something through 🤨
 
His murder was horrific,

but I’m finding it hard to see how a man, previously flagged to police, who stabbed a politician multiple times, When they believe it has a potential link to Islamist extremism, has anything to do with online abuse….

security yes, i could even understand people questioning who they “let into the country”

but online abuse?! Seems to me like they’re using this to push an agenda they’ve been trying to push for a while now 😐
 
Oohthedrama said:
His murder was horrific,

but I’m finding it hard to see how a man, previously flagged to police, who stabbed a politician multiple times, When they believe it has a potential link to Islamist extremism, has anything to do with online abuse….

security yes, let could even understand people questioning who they “let into the country”

but online abuse?! Seems to me like they’re using this to push an agenda they’ve been trying to push for a while now 😐
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what I think too, everyone is jumping on it even politicians here , Arlene will have a field day this is what she’s been fighting for.
 
I think the murder has led to the wider issue that I think Jo Cox's husband got spot on.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Jo Cox's widower calls for an end to 'dehumanising' behaviour

Brendan Cox, whose wife was killed by a far-right extremist in 2016 while a serving Labour MP, said people needed to challenge comments which 'celebrate political segregation'.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

The best part of the last decade has got more diversive when it comes to politics. The whole 'tory scum' thing is just as bad as what Trump did. Its inflaming hatred and needs to stop and people need to be held to account.

And if people online need to be held to account, so do bloody inflencers. Their whole culture is sick and is helping feed many issues in society.
 
It's an odd thing online communities.

For example, you have little groups, Brenda, Barbara and Gladys, they love to knit, swop recipes and giggle at cheeky photo's, all silly fun in private, but then some members get twitchy fingers and before you know it, one of them is banned for life, another put in time out from posting :(

Meanwhile, there are parents who get a tug on their sleeve, a teenager child who's spotted vile comments about them, which could drive them to suicide .... reported but then you get "does not breach our guidelines" :oops: madness.

Then you get all sorts of vile photo's of harm to others and they don't get taken down, but a new Mum showing baby gets tugged because there is a small amount of boobs in the shot and oh my, we can't have those being shown doing their job now can we? :oops: again madness.
 
Yel said:
It's pretty disgusting how they're using this tragedy for their own agenda.

I don't know much about terrorist radicalisation, but I'm sure it happens on dark web / encrypted type stuff that's near impossible to shut down.
Click to expand...

I haven’t seen any indication he was linked to any online activity/abuse/trolling and I very much doubt stripping everyone of the anonymity will be the nail in the coffin when it comes to terrorist activity.

what I find hard to understand is, they majority have rejected the suggestion of private/extra security or zoom calls with the public instead of face to face meetings, and they seem to suggest this is the answer,

but do they watch PM’s questions and see how they interact with each other 🙄

politics will always bring extreme reactions and emotions to the surface, especially from the public who are the ones dealing with the consequences, I’m not condoning it btw,

but a lot of people are too scared to say how the feel without anonymity (abuse victims for example)
Taking that away because of the actions of a few just goes too far in my opinion,

we don’t teach people how *not* to be an alcoholic by banning everyone from purchasing alcohol.
People need to learn, but not by punishment and restrictions.
 
Hmmm the Panorama seemed a light touch on the topic as usual. Ending with no real conclusion basically saying maybe the government will do something, maybe they won't. It didn't shed light on anything new. Maybe it would have been a bit more hard hitting if they'd have aired it post-watershed
 
Oohthedrama said:
His murder was horrific,

but I’m finding it hard to see how a man, previously flagged to police, who stabbed a politician multiple times, When they believe it has a potential link to Islamist extremism, has anything to do with online abuse….

security yes, i could even understand people questioning who they “let into the country”

but online abuse?! Seems to me like they’re using this to push an agenda they’ve been trying to push for a while now 😐
Click to expand...
I think it may have to do with radical grooming. These evil cult like groups prey on the vulernable and lonely people and make them believe in their cause. Its awful.

I dont see how it can be liked to big tits martha stating that a shampoo some influencers is flogging is full of shite and shes only doing it because she cannot be arsed to get a regular job like the rest of us plebs. Nope, dont see it?!
 
monga said:
Thank God for that, there’s a lot of MPs throwing their weight against online abuse today they’ll jump on any bandwagon going maybe they’ll even name some kind of bill after David Amess this is the perfect time to push something through 🤨
Click to expand...
Could see that coming
E3824BB1-1C3B-4B3C-A0A5-C5133F08344F.jpeg


Apparently David had vowed to fight online trolling before his death
F96DBE59-7B2B-4412-ADA2-0C8562C71ABA.jpeg
D85D8E75-BB2D-42F2-AB89-D9357DEB120C.jpeg
 
Last edited:
I wonder if there could be a way of ending online anonymity for people contacting public figures through social media rather than ending online anonymity across the board. Maybe some sort of gateway that messages to public figures (and comments in their timelines?) have to pass though?

This would allow people to comment anonymously btl on newspaper articles, in any commentary forum and in other specified situations but not allow them to contact a public figure anonymously. That would help with what is everyone's main concern - to end the vile abuse and threats of violence that women in public life, in particular, are subjected to - without curtailing freedom of expression and the use of anonymity in certain sensitive situations.
 
[
Aude said:
I wonder if there could be a way of ending online anonymity for people contacting public figures through social media rather than ending online anonymity across the board. Maybe some sort of gateway that messages to public figures (and comments in their timelines?) have to pass though?

This would allow people to comment anonymously btl on newspaper articles, in any commentary forum and in other specified situations but not allow them to contact a public figure anonymously. That would help with what is everyone's main concern - to end the vile abuse and threats of violence that women in public life, in particular, are subjected to - without curtailing freedom of expression and the use of anonymity in certain sensitive situations.
Click to expand...

Much better idea. Would also stop vulnerable people who message these people genuinely waiting for replies being able to contact people who don’t give a tit about them. Would also stop certain influencers being able to send messages to them self, screen shotting it and claiming they get sooo much abuse if that’s stopped. Loads of them do this for engagement and clout, it’s usually very obvious as they are typed very similar to how they type it and it’s word for word feedback from them scrolling on tattle
 
The Parliamentary investigation team said that less than 15% of abusive correspondence is done via social media, the majority was done by letter or phone calls/emails.

also heard a really valid point earlier, take away the ability to be anonymous online and whistleblowers are a thing of the past, nobody is going to out the shady dealings of a corporation if they’re going to get caught 😐
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top