Does an online presence change morality?

[Gospel]

While I don't advocate for law enforcement to directly monitor online discussion boards (I'm sure they currently do anyway), I do support stronger accountability measures for social media platforms in cases of severe online bullying. Specifically, if these platforms fail to comply with legal subpoenas in instances of egregious cyberbullying, they should risk losing Section 230 protections. This would make them vulnerable to lawsuits, thereby encouraging more responsible management of user interactions and content moderation. And by egregious I mean instances where the platform operators/owners participate in the bullying rather than just platform users.

Be right back, I need to check if my Tesla has been remotely deactivated by Elon Musk.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Aside from having online discussion boards overseen by law enforcement agencies, we could ...

Anti-government speech, anti-police discussion, pro-legislative activism for changing unjust laws, or even non-jingoistic or don't-stand-for-the-pledge-or-national-anthem speech would probably not fair very well in such a world. For example, you discussed in a thread about censorship how you are against child sex but okay with someone looking at child porn. How do you imagine those views would be received by police overseeing discussion? OR consider all the websites you've been banned from, at least in some cases where you took a controversial atheist point of view. How do you think typically Christian conservative police would treat your banning from such sites?

...we could develop a ratings system in which web sites are evaluated for their content.

Based on your creating a thread over at CARM where Christians fabricated some stories about IIDB--to include that it was moderated by a bunch of ex-pastors who disallowed discussion of the bible--and that then you came back and repeated here as if true, how do you think minority viewpoints would fair in such a system dominated by untrue religious positions and fabrications about atheist groups? Wouldn't the Islamo-Judeo-Christian soldiers march onward as if to war against infidel websites?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

While I don't advocate for law enforcement to directly monitor online discussion boards (I'm sure they currently do anyway)...

Law enforcement agencies have limited resources which is a common rationale of theirs when they don't bother to investigate some reported crimes. So I'm guessing that the FBI, for example, would only monitor online discussion boards when they are investigating a particular suspect.

I do support stronger accountability measures for social media platforms in cases of severe online bullying. Specifically, if these platforms fail to comply with legal subpoenas in instances of egregious cyberbullying, they should risk losing Section 230 protections. This would make them vulnerable to lawsuits, thereby encouraging more responsible management of user interactions and content moderation.

If I understand correctly, currently internet forums have the equivalent of exculpatory clauses which free them of all liability regarding a user's posted comments. So it seems to me that internet forums are more lax in taming down cyberbullies for that reason. Why should forum sponsors worry about their users getting hurt when those users can't sue the sponsors?

And by egregious I mean instances where the platform operators/owners participate in the bullying rather than just platform users.

Yes. On many forums I've been harassed, insulted, and bullied by the staff. Treating people like that should have legal consequences. Can you imagine a local Walmart treating its customers like that? If it's wrong offline, then the internet doesn't make it right.

Be right back, I need to check if my Tesla has been remotely deactivated by Elon Musk.

I hope not.

Let me close by saying that our discussion so far has been very interesting not to mention free of insults, name-calling, and other garbage that so many people like to inflict on others online. So good behavior online is quite possible.

 

[Rhea]

Why should forum sponsors worry about their users getting hurt when those users can't sue the sponsors?

Because they have a vision for what their board is for and can easily see what drives traffic.
Allowing bullying (actual bullying) will attract certain types (call them “A”) and drive away certain types (Call them ”B”). So if the board owners want type B, they will moderate bullying; which moderation will tend to drive away A types..

 

[Gospel]

Let me close by saying that our discussion so far has been very interesting not to mention free of insults, name-calling, and other garbage that so many people like to inflict on others online. So good behavior online is quite possible.

Thanks for mentioning that. I have to admit, I'm only human and sometimes I get too fired up about my opinions here, which hasn't always led to my best moments. Thankfully, a lot of folks in this community are pretty tough (or maybe just patient) and haven't kicked me out yet.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I don't think it changes a person's moral compass, it reveals their moral compass. If you're a dick to people online, then you're just a dick. The internet allows you to exercise your true self without consequences.

This.
Although I'd argue in the US at least, people's behavior when they think they're safe inside a 5000+ lb killing machine we call an automobile, they are often even worse.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm just straight-up skipping the first several pages of this thread. I think it goes without saying that the OP is abysmally unaware of their own behavior... and we could all spend untold days taking the piss as a result.

That said... I think there's merit to the topic itself.

I don't think it's so much a change in morality, at least not for the most part. I mean, we all know that the veil of anonymity allows humans to suspend their empathic responses, and basically be much more of an asshole than they would be if they had to actually see the non-verbal responses of the person they're hurting. But I also think that can be mitigated with some reasonable oversight - mods here do a fairly good job of it on the whole.

What I think is a bigger problem is the impact on cognitive development.

Many of us here are... let's say... "mature". I think the core membership is largely Gen-X, with a few trailing Boomers. We've got some younger kids floating around... but it seems like they're relatively few. Most of the younger folks just don't last. They can't abide by the rules, they can't behave themselves, and they can't hack being called on their bad behavior.

I think that social media is a barrier to appropriate cognitive development in young people. We've evolved as a social species, and the development of behavioral conformity to norms, empathy, compassion, relational bonding, friendship, etc. are all stages that kids go through to become mentally mature adults. We're not born knowing all the rules for how to get along in society - those rules aren't universal or objective. But we are born with the capacity to learn them, in the same way we're born with the capacity for language.

Some of them are fairly well documented stages of childhood development, but I don't know all the right terms. As infants, we learn that other people are actually other people - they're external to us, and we need to develop the rudiments of communication in order to get our needs met. As toddlers that gets extended; almost every kid bites and gets bitten, and they learn that biting hurts... and they learn that if they bite someone else it will hurt that other person - this is very early stage empathy. As young kids, we learn that other people have different likes and preferences than we do, and that it's normal and acceptable for them to do so. Prior to puberty, we generally learn to extrapolate that understanding, so that we can predict what another person will like - this is the stage where kids pick out gifts for their friends, and those gifts represent what the other person likes and what the shopper does not like. It's the "I don't like robots, but Sarah does, so I'm going to get this robot for her birthday, because I think she will like it" stage. It might not seem like much, but it's a really fundamental aspect of cognitive growth.

Puberty gets even messier, because hormones. All of our emotional responses get amplified, and we start developing whole new types of emotional responses as we develop sexual bonding. And we also start to really learn restraint, we learn to mitigate our emotional responses to avoid hurting others. We start to understand that even though what Bob said made me angry, I need to not exhibit my anger, I need to control my physical responses and implement a filter between my brain and my mouth. We learn to weigh our emotions against the social cost of exhibition, we learn the trade-off of when we should speak out and when we shouldn't.

All of that has evolved in an environment of personal interaction. And the non-verbal cues involved are vital to it.

Online, on social media, we don't have that. Is oldsters largely have text-based social media, we're interacting with the written word. And there's a massive amount of communication that doesn't come through. Younger kids have tik tok and instagram and other short-video platforms. Those allow for the speaker to convey non-verbal cues, but it still prohibits the response of the listener. This a kid can make a video that is extremely hurtful and nasty... and they never have to face the consequence of that, they aren't exposed to the impact of their words and behaviors. Similarly, responses to a video are insulated as well, because there's no direct interaction.

I think that social media prohibits the development of mature communication and behavioral modification.

 

[southernhybrid]

There have been numerous lawsuits against social media sites, although they are for much worse things than simply calling people names or making insults. I don't know enough about the outcomes of these lawsuits, although it appears as if META lost a big one in 2020 if I understood the article correctly.

Here's a link about the latest lawsuit against META.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/06/tech/new-mexico-lawsuit-meta-child-sexual-exploitation/index.html

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez has accused Meta Platforms of creating a “breeding ground” for child predators on Facebook and Instagram in a lawsuit filed Tuesday, the latest in a string of legal actions related to alleged harms to young users caused by the social media giant.

Meta allegedly exposes young users to sexual content and makes it possible for adult users they don’t know to contact them, putting children at risk of abuse or exploitation, according to the complaint, filed in New Mexico state court.

“Meta’s business model of profit over child safety and business practices of misrepresenting the amount of dangerous material and conduct to which its platforms expose children violates New Mexico law,” the complaint, which also names Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg as a defendant, states. “Meta should be held accountable for the harms it has inflicted on New Mexico’s children.”


Meta has faced growing scrutiny over the impact of its platforms on young users in recent years. The social media giant has been sued by various school districts and state attorney generals in lawsuits related to youth mental health, child safety and privacy. Former Facebook employee-turned-whistleblower Arturo Bejar also told a Senate subcommittee last month that Meta’s top executives, including Zuckerberg, ignored warnings for years about harms to teens on its platforms.

The social media giant last month also sued the Federal Trade Commission in an effort to prevent regulators from reopening the company’s landmark $5 billion privacy settlement from 2020 and from banning the social media giant from monetizing the user data of children

Meta strongly denied claims that its platforms put children at risk.

I agree with lawsuits like this one. Social media should certainly be held responsible for ignoring or not being vigilant enough when it comes to protecting children from predators. Of course, if the predators are found, they will be prosecuted.

People insult and bully others in real life all the time without any legal consequences, as long as they don't make death threats or use physical force. Free speech allows us to be verbal assholes. Just look at how some of our politicians are verbally attacking each these days, for an example.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Our "online presence" appears to change these rules significantly at least for a lot of people. Many evidently see the internet as a place of mischief where the distance and anonymity of that medium opens the door to opportunities to treat others badly. Their mistreatment includes bullying in gangs, cursing out those with different or opposing views, insulting others, threats, and engaging in name-calling. Those who own and run these online social mediums are often lax in enforcing rules to prevent this kind of abuse and may even encourage it or engage in it firsthand by bullying anybody who does not support their agenda.

You have made several comments about moderation practices. I’ll say this (as a mod) for everyone to hear because it bears reminding: It is agains the TOU to make public discussions out of moderation activities. You have been told this, as have others. If you have something you need to clear up with moderation, start a thread in the “Private Feedback” forum. That’s what it’s there for. That is the ONLY place that it is okay to comment on or complain about moderation.

If people want to swear, there is no rule against it here, although I’m sure there are scripts you could write that will strip all swears from the content.

That's rough stuff don't you think? Daring to question cursing mods is forbidden while cursing out anybody else is perfectly acceptable.

Anyway, I have a question that will probably not get a straight answer. If the case of the bullied boy I mentioned in the OP was different in that he had either read what I have said about suicide on this board or what any of the other members have said about suicide on this board, then in which case would he still be alive? In the case he had read my posts or in the case he had read other's posts including yours?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Daring to question cursing mods is forbidden while cursing out anybody else is perfectly acceptable.

You seem to be framing this in an inaccurate way as well as derailing the thread. You ARE allowed to question mods in-thread when the topic of the thread and the question is on-topic. So, for example, in the Gaza/Israel thread you can see that posters disagree and agree with moderators and form questions of them on THAT topic. A discussion of _MODERATION_ doesn't belong in the topics ordinarily and if any gripe at all is allowed in any thread, it'd quickly be the cesspool you complain about. Moderation is discussed in private feedback where you can argue your point ad infinitum.

To review--questioning cursing or non-cursing mods is not forbidden. Keeping threads on topic is what is attempted.

The next part--cursing out anybody else is perfectly acceptable--it depends. If you say "Hey you douchebag," that would be unacceptable. That's an insult. If you say, "Your point is fucking ridiculous jibberjabber," that is not an insult directed at a person and so that kind of curse is not immediately disallowed or anything.

Anyway, I have a question that will probably not get a straight answer. If the case of the bullied boy I mentioned in the OP was different in that he had either read what I have said about suicide on this board or what any of the other members have said about suicide on this board, then in which case would he still be alive? In the case he had read my posts or in the case he had read other's posts including yours?

Most probably none of the posts in question would have had an affect on him. Caring about what other kids say and do is not the same as some randos on a rando forum on the Interwebs.

That said, there is an interesting other thread you wrote on censorship. In that thread, you said that child sex was a no-no, but not looking at child porn on the Internet. By the same logic, you'd also call disallowing revenge porn censorship. I even pointed this out to you in the thread. I even gave an example of someone who committed suicide because of revenge porn. No doubt there also have been small children, well beyond the number of this one boy you mention, who committed suicide after their porn was made public and people were looking at it. Because these things re-traumatize people, whether it is revenge porn or child porn, but your ideological position was that making laws saying you can't look at it is censorship.

So, now, while one may wonder why you ignored mention of the woman's suicide in that censorship thread, one must really wonder if you are willing to judge yourself in the same way as you are trying to judge everyone else. You've written about moral topics like remorse and up above about hypothetical logical consequences of victims reading threads. So, don't you think that the woman committed suicide and kids have committed suicide because people were doing what you think ought to be legal?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Anyway, I have a question that will probably not get a straight answer. If the case of the bullied boy I mentioned in the OP was different in that he had either read what I have said about suicide on this board or what any of the other members have said about suicide on this board, then in which case would he still be alive? In the case he had read my posts or in the case he had read other's posts including yours?

Most probably none of the posts in question would have had an affect on him. Caring about what other kids say and do is not the same as some randos on a rando forum on the Interwebs.

The article is very clear in that it mentioned the boy being told by cyberbullies to commit suicide as the reason he committed suicide. [removed to ~E]

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The article is very clear in that it mentioned the boy being told by cyberbullies to commit suicide as the reason he committed suicide.

No. These were not randos. They were people he knew in his school, i.e. school bullies who used social media to bully him along with bullying him at school. These people he knew picked on his clothes, shoes, and school lunch situation and they did that in school. He attempted to commit suicide before they told him to do it through alcohol poisoning. They have to observe his clothing and where would they have observed it? In school. After picking on him over and over and over in school, they also extended it to social media. They then told him to kill himself and the father believes this is what precipitated his suicide, but there is also another thing that happened around the same time. He stole money from his parents that was supposed to be used for a school camping trip and used it to pay his school lunch account instead so he would not be picked on for not having lunch. Then, he got in trouble with his parents. His dad left to run an errand and when he came back, the kid had killed himself.

People care more about opinions of people closer to their inner circle, generally speaking. While we could find some people who committed suicide due to randos, this kid isn't one of them. These were people he knew. Your whole thesis about people doing things online through anonymity and this being a prime example goes kaput because this is not an example of anonymity online.

We could come up with a different example of anonymity. For example, the case of the woman whose images were plastered on the Internet as revenge porn. Now, your ideological position stated in the censorship thread was that child sex was a no-no, but people should be able to look at child porn legally so long as they are not engaging in child sex. We can infer that your position would also make revenge porn legal because in both situations the victim would not anonymous people out there wanking to very private images and videos they never agreed to share. You know that the woman committed suicide as a result of the revenge porn, but you ignore the issue. It doesn't fit neatly into your ideological positions even though it resulted in suicide which you say you are against. In both cases of revenge porn and child porn, we could even call it CYBER BULLYING by the perpetrators who anonymously put these images and videos online non-consensually. But you are silent on it.
[removed to ~E]

 

[Rhea]

STAFF NOTICE

The massive derails about ad homs, claims that iidb has group think, and abortion laws has been moved to elsewhere.

To everyone on this thread: BE the poster you want to read. The topic is whether anonymity and online venues lead to worse behavior.

Stay away from ad homs. If your comment addresses the person and not the argument - DELETE IT.

If the topic doesn't suit you, post on topics that do suit you. Don't magnify poor behavior.

You may now all reset your irony meters to the new calibration in light of this thread complaining about online behavior having to be moderated due to online behavior.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Those who own and run these online social mediums are often lax in enforcing rules to prevent this kind of abuse and may even encourage it or engage in it firsthand by bullying anybody who does not support their agenda.

How bad can it get? Pretty darned bad. Here is but one tragic example: Boy reportedly hangs self after bullies tell him to commit suicide.

As I wrote before, that incident isn't the best kind of example of cyber bullying...especially in consideration of alleged platform owners supporting an agenda and anonymity. To review, the bullies were not anonymous and they were people he knew from school. Their medium to pick on him was school. Every day, they made fun of his clothes, shoes, lack of money to buy school lunch, etc. It was only later these bullies extended it to also use social media in addition to school bullying.

A better example of this kind of behavior is an example I brought up in the censorship thread: revenge porn.

How a cybersecurity expert helped take down revenge porn IsAnyoneUp

James McGibney claims to have played a role in the takedown of the porn revenge site IsAnyoneUp, which was made into a three-part documentary on Netflix called The Most Hated Man on the Internet.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This is a case of bullies trying to be anonymous and platform owners supporting their misbehaviors.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Those who own and run these online social mediums are often lax in enforcing rules to prevent this kind of abuse and may even encourage it or engage in it firsthand by bullying anybody who does not support their agenda.

How bad can it get? Pretty darned bad. Here is but one tragic example: Boy reportedly hangs self after bullies tell him to commit suicide.

As I wrote before, that incident isn't the best kind of example of cyber bullying...especially in consideration of alleged platform owners supporting an agenda and anonymity. To review, the bullies were not anonymous and they were people he knew from school. Their medium to pick on him was school. Every day, they made fun of his clothes, shoes, lack of money to buy school lunch, etc. It was only later these bullies extended it to also use social media in addition to school bullying.

A better example of this kind of behavior is an example I brought up in the censorship thread: revenge porn.

How a cybersecurity expert helped take down revenge porn IsAnyoneUp

James McGibney claims to have played a role in the takedown of the porn revenge site IsAnyoneUp, which was made into a three-part documentary on Netflix called The Most Hated Man on the Internet.

www.dailymail.co.uk

This is a case of bullies trying to be anonymous and platform owners supporting their misbehaviors.

Thanks for your responses, but it appears that you are veering off into irrelevancies that have little to do with the core issue of this thread. So I'm going to rest my case because I've already made my case that we should treat people online at least as well as we treat them offline.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Thanks for your responses, but it appears that you are veering off into irrelevancies that have little to do with the core issue of this thread. So I'm going to rest my case because I've already made my case that we should treat people online at least as well as we treat them offline.

The logical problem was not mine, but instead the example you gave was not in agreement with all the features you listed in the op. Obviously I am not going to force you to discuss revenge porn, even though it is a better example of what you wrote in the op.