The last thing we all need

Grant Malcolm | 01/03/2009 - 17:35

With apologies in advance because the last thing we need is more discussion on this topic but I think the following article should be required reading for the few members that raise this topic on a regular basis:

Tracy Frazier's article, You Read What About Me on the Internet?!: Anonymous Online Libel, THE LEGALITY, Feb. 26, 2009, http://www.thelegality.com/archives/125

Everyone else, 27 new audition and production notices added to the site this week, ten blog posts, four reviews and lots more interesting theatre related things than this post!

Regards
Grant

previous forum topic | next forum topic | email this forum topic | 1554 reads

Reminds me of the saying,

Author: Na
Date: 01/03/2009 - 18:50

Reminds me of the saying, "Your rights stop at my face". Why do people think that just because the internet is a free-for-all that that absolves them of having to respect other people?

Seahorse shadow puppet for sale at
Puppets in Melbourne

Sadly Na, good manners,

Author: Tim Prosser
Date: 01/03/2009 - 21:10

Sadly Na, good manners, respect and consideration for the feelings of others are all attributes in diminishing supply. Paradoxically, if you think about it, the purveyors of rudeness and hostility merely display their own lack of self respect. If only we could all remember to treat others as we would wish to be treated by them, the world would be a far happier place. But we don't and it isn't.

Even the most well-meaning of us fail from time to time, and we usually recognise our failures, feel remorse for them and express apology. Unfortunately, what passes for comedy in today's world is largely based on cruel ridicule and the sarcastic 'put-down line'. Having an 'attitude' is viewed as 'cool', and this breeds a 'stuff you, I couldn't give a sh*t' mentality.

Deplorable as that is, I don't see a widespread return to more respectful values any time soon. Those dwindling few of us who DO maintain some semblance of self respect by actually giving a hoot about what people think of us . . . can only do our best to inspire it in others, if we can.

It's a difficult world of our own making, and we humans appear to have a particular talent for making it even more difficult every day. We must be mad!

Thanks for posting the article Grant, and best wishes to all.

Anonymous Posters

Author: Greg Ross
Date: 02/03/2009 - 07:38

Hi Grant

Thanks for putting the article up, it's very interesting reading, however, for me, it doesn't answer the main questions, they are:

Why allow anonymous postings?

What is the point of anonymous postings?

Certainly for those in any community that get off (take pleasure) in malicious, unfounded gossip (and lets be real here), lies, there's an obvious benefit, but for those who find such things distasteful and unneccessary, there is hurt and more often than not, unwarranted damage to reputations.

What seems to be brought up (in defence) with monotonous regularity, is, the admittedly vital concept of free speech. Like most people, I would absolutely defend anybody's right to practice that, however if someone chooses to say something incorrect about me, lie, or even defame me, should I not have recourse to correct the issue?

It appears to be one of those cases where the law crawls up its own backside, as the learned legal eagles ponder the more esoteric threads of the dilemma and, like so much of our Westminster-based legal system, the victim is deemed of little or no consequence.

By all means, form and freely state your opinion, but if your viewpoint is formed from hearsay, minimal facts, guesswork and even malice, then of course you will want to hide. Which must be a relief to some, as I'm the sort of person who will confront, effortlessly and, metaphorically speaking of course, "rip your fucking lungs out" - if malice is behind it all.

It needs mentioning that there is a difference between Nom de Plumes, such as Peter Nettleton and his Stinger persona, there's no attempt at disguise, or hiding - if someone disagrees with his views, they're able to contact him, no one could have any realistic objections to the system.

Young Daniel deserves full credit for having the courage to state his opinions under his own name, people may not always agree with his opinions, but they are honest, although perhaps more illuminating than he would wish. And here young man, let us tackle your homo eroticism statement.

It made me laugh - I'm secure and comfortable enough with my sexuality (and that of others), to understand the earnest young uni student behind the chosen words. However you've probably realised now, that you've offended a number of people in the theatre community, admittedly, I suspect, unintentionally, but nevertheless, I hope it's a lesson well learnt, we all make mistakes that we cringe over for years to come.

And that segues into reinforcing my point on anonymous posters, I have no recourse to challenge their statements, that is an injustice.

Kind regards

Greg Ross

Minister for Good Times

Who am I?

Author: Grant Malcolm
Date: 02/03/2009 - 16:39

Greg Ross wrote:
> Why allow anonymous postings?
As others have indicated, this question has been asked and answered several times over the last few years.
Perhaps the following article should also be compulsory reading:
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog
Registration only provides a reasonable assurance that any posts by the same registered member probably originated from the same person - although there have been embarassing exceptions where people sharing the same computer have inadvertently posted using someone else's registration details.
In itself, registration tells you nothing about who a person is. Or whether, with deference to the article above, they are a person at all.
For all I know, Greg Ross may be a dog.
> if someone chooses to say something incorrect about me, lie,
> or even defame me, should I not have recourse to correct the issue?
Several courses of action are available to you:

provide your own corrections

watch as others provide their own corrections

complain and ask for the content to be removed

pursue action for defamation

do nothing

It makes no difference whether a post is from a registered member or an anonymous user, all four options remain open to you. What other recourse could you hope for?
As the article mentioned in an earlier post makes it clear:

"...courts have held that given the nature of online forums, online comments cannot be taken as seriously as those made in real life or in the media."

Cheers
Grant
--
Director, actor and administrator of this website

Dogged

Author: Greg Ross
Date: 02/03/2009 - 17:36

Well, I suspect you're closer than you think Grant - like a dog with a bone would be rather appropriate and Daniel might suggest I'm more of a poodle than a German Shepherd!
Of course, regardless of where past courts have gone, in terms of definition, online forums are increasingly being regarded as a form of media. Indeed, if one considers the abysmal state The West Australian newspaper was dragged into by its immediate past editor, online forums are probably just as legitimate as daily newspapers.
You are correct in detailing the current four courses of action available, however may I suggest a different approach to the issue, one that I would certainly put my paw mark to.
Subscribers / members are only able to register with a proven name and address, utilising contact details etc, that are confirmed by another medium - eg: post. When that process has happened, the member can make any post they want, although it must be in their confirmed name, or a Nom de Plume, providing there was an open-register of people and their pen names.
How could anybody complain? They would be free to say what they liked.
Cheers
Greg
Greg Ross
Minister for Good Times

Greg, if I may be so blunt:

Author: Na
Date: 02/03/2009 - 18:27

Greg, if I may be so blunt: your point may be valid but stupid. For a number of reasons.

1. Who the hell will pay for these background checks? I doubt the ITA will front the money, since this site represents more than their activities. Do we charge members to join up? Sure that will stop trolling, but mean every single member will disappear since what actor/techie has the money to pay for yet another website?

2. Inherent privacy issues. You not only have to entrust the background-checkers with private information, but ensure the site can not be hacked and the info must remain secure at all times. This therefore impacts both the site admin's job and the trust of the members.

3. Who the hell do you get to do the background checks? The cops - better things to do with their time. A private company? That would run into millions - 14k+ registered members times several days or weeks worth of tracking information down = too much money. (This is why an SSL certificate costs so much money; to get one for your website you may pay several thousand dollars for a background check) A volunteer? Even more chance that privacy will be abused. Grant, the sole admin? He has better things to do with his time.

4. Google does a background check (for Adsense) whereby they send a code to your snail mail address. Again, this costs money, and only proves that someone is at the address: anyone can use a fake address, or use a PO Box, and means very little in terms of proving who you say you are. Likewise, Paypal receives the occasional fake user, as reported by the thousands who get scammed by Chinese/whatever sellers. A Wikipedia spin off (I forget the actual name) does exactly what you suggest and only has confirmed registered users who can edit/contribute to the site; the site has not been as popular and even the founder admits inherent problems with privacy, proof of ID and security of info.

5. As repeated, even if you provide proof that you are who you say you are, it does nothing to stop people from actually trolling; it only means they first need to sign up with a real address... something they can easily do by picking a random name from the phone book, borrowing a friend's address or phone number, or whatever. This also does not mean that anyone will take libel seriously.

6. How do you feasibly do background checks on people who live overseas? There are legitimate members who join here/visit, who actually wish to be a part of this community who do not reside in Australia. Background checks in other countries presents an enormous burden both financially and legally. Likewise, as with many websites, recourse for legal action may only apply in the state/country that the website is created in (in this case, Perth, WA, Australia). There may be legal impediments to both do background checks and to enforce any legal punishment to those who reside overseas.

7. This is why most websites, except those which require payment systems (even then most payment systems work in tandem with local banks and law enforcement agencies), do not use registration that requires a background check, whatever format it is in. Facebook doesn't use it, Myspace doesn't.... why is it necessary here? (Speaking of those two websites, perhaps you should look at the suicides of kids who were harassed by members who signed up under pseudonyms, including a mother of a child who was taking revenge on behalf of her daughter. Even those with brains can abuse the system, and I doubt putting in her actual address would have stopped the harassment: case in point)

8. What do you do with members who aren't legit? Call the cops? Sue them? No... Ban them? That's what we do now, and every single day. Frankly, forcing a registration that also includes a real name/address/whatever, only means 10 times more work for the site admin; with no actual changes to the site or quality of posts.

9. If we used your suggestion, people will be able to "say what they like". How does your suggestion actually encourage quality posting and discourage libel and trolling? Basically what you're saying is that so long as I have a legitimate address, name (or known pseudonym), I can say whatever I like and take no responsibility for it... because I've registered properly and therefore can't be a troll! And nobody can complain about it cause I registered properly!

May I suggest you go and research privacy, registration, etc. before making these comments? You may discover that in fact this site is already using the best mechanisms it can to provide both a worthwhile experience to the visitor and uphold the various aspects/problems that come with creating and maintaining a website.

"You are correct in detailing the current four courses of action available, however may I suggest a different approach to the issue, one that I would certainly put my paw mark to. "

The approach may be different, but certainly not feasible. Not unless you're willing to front the money to do these background checks in exchange for little to no reductions in trolling and/or libel. Grant on the other hand offers four reasonable, effective and feasible courses of action which are in use on millions of other sites for those same reasons.

I'll also add that suing an online version of a newspaper will likely be considered differently to an online forum community by a court of law; IANAL but it's a guess. It could also be to do with the set up of the site. A newspaper will be a corporation, but an online community forum can be run by anything from a corporation to just some Joe with too much time on their hands. Likewise, terms and conditions differ from site to site and country to country.

Seahorse shadow puppet for sale at
Puppets in Melbourne

Here's another idea

Author: Na
Date: 02/03/2009 - 19:36

Let's catalogue all the threads devoted to discussing changes in the site (forced registration, free speech, libel, etc.) in the FAQ. Then instead of repeating ourselves/reasons for changes, we can simply point to the FAQ.

Or is that too logical?

Seahorse shadow puppet for sale at
Puppets in Melbourne

Asked and answered.

Author: jeffhansen
Date: 02/03/2009 - 09:15

I think we've been over this ground many times before, with the decision to allow anonymous posters to remain, as they generally contribute much more positive material than negative.
Even if we enforced a "registered posters only" rule, you still get the registered anonymous users, such as 'devils advocate' who tends to post negative comments, whilst hiding behind the cloak of anonymity, as he/she doesn't reveal his/her name on the user profile page. Then there is davidwilding39, who's name is not David at all, but is a pseudonym for another registered user.

So we retain the status quo, and Grant is left to clean up after the trolls, and people like yourself seem to attract them.
Hope to see you at the show on closing weekend.

www.meltheco.org.au

Turtle Neck Syndrome

Author: Labrug
Date: 02/03/2009 - 10:36

People like myself, Na, Greg Ross, Stinger, Danny K, and a few others who regularly stick their necks out and make some noise about this, that or the other are going to attract a few predators. It is the nature of the beast and the business. Just look at the lynchings that more notables regularly take, deserved or not. Accept it as a part of being noticed.
It is an unavoidable part of our society and in some sense, humanity in general. We have been given the faculties to feel joy, shame, envy, jealousy, desire, anger, hatred by what-ever higher power you take note of. How we put those 'gifts' to use is a matter of personal choice and given the number of people in the world, and the pressures of society, you are going to find every possible use of these emotional aspects, and more often against those who make themselves targets. Why shoot someone you can't see?
I find it is a real case of no-news is good-news. For every Troll taunting you, there are likely to be many more who general accept, appreciate or enjoy what you have to say but do not feel the need to comment or 'stick their neck out' also. Let's face it, I myself have enjoyed certain posts, voted them up, yet have not added comment as I did not see the need. Posting something along the lines of "I AGREE!" and nothing else doesn't seem right, to me.
In addition, I find that Trolls have either of two agendas, to randomly and deliberately sow disruption or the goad a specific individual to an emotional reaction for a percieved jealous slight. Unless there is some thought given to the comment that can be backed up with intellectual perception, then it is simply an emotional outburst, with which we can do little with anyway, and to be ignored.
Trolling is not restricted to unregistered and anonymous posters however and a number of registered and self-identified posters (and well known at that) regularly engage in mud-slinging matches. Sometimes there is a measure of intellectual debate between them. Thankfully, this is contained within the confines of their own arguments and we can see that it is simply a clash of personalities rather than Tolling per-se.
I guess what I am saying is that if you are the type of person who will make a stand, speak up, stick-your-neck-out, then you have to anticipate that someone is going to take a shot at you. Most of it will be "personal opinion" type stuff which will go under the radar of such legal applications of Libel which focuses on Factual Defamatory Statements. That is the stuff we will just have to live with.
There you have it. My personal feelings on Trolls and Trolling. Take it or leave it, or Troll it.
Absit invidia (and DFT )
Jeff Watkins
Home Page
Yahoo Blog Page
SN Profile

I will also add - and

Author: Na
Date: 02/03/2009 - 11:02

I will also add - and reiterate again as I'm sure it's been mentioned before - that registration is also not a deterrant to spammers, who generally sign up and bombard the other registered members with spam/scams. They also sign up in order to post non-theatre related threads and/or comments that are spam.

In the last few days I have personally banned a couple of these registered members. But they disappear without most people even knowing they were here in the first place, so no one really can understand how pervasive the attacks are unless they have backend access; I assure you, looking at the backend logs is an eye-opener to how much spam and how many banned members are knocked back every day.

There is faulty logic in assuming that registration will solve either trolls or spam. It's a part of internet life and we just have to make ourselves more strident in proctecting the site. Registration certainly will not solve the problems - but I do wish we had it anyway.

Seahorse shadow puppet for sale at
Puppets in Melbourne

malice

Author: stinger
Date: 02/03/2009 - 21:26

"noun 1. desire to inflict injury or suffering on another.
2. Law evil intent on the part of someone who commits a wrongful act injurious to others, technically called malitia praecogitata, or malice prepense or malice aforethought. [Middle English, from Old French, from Latin malitia badness, spite, malice]" - Macquarie Dictionary.

This is a bit different to defamation, which others have fully defined earlier and which is actionable at law. Malice, or spite per se, is not.

Unfortunately, if we stick our heads up, we are vulnerable to random loppers.The only recourse we really have is to pull our heads in.

I also endorse GM's earlier observation, that actual defamation on this site would be extremely difficult to establish anyway. My advice to frequent posters therefore is not to call for more draconian sanctions, but to don some metaphoric body armour, grin and bear it !

Ssstinger>>>

Walkely Magazine, No:55, Feb / March

Author: Greg Ross
Date: 03/03/2009 - 15:08

George Megalogenis (senior writer with The Australian), has an excellent article on blogs and toxic posters in the latest issue of The Walkley. (pg 5). There is also a wonderful accompanying cartoon by Jon Kudelka (The Australian). I would attach it if I could, but the system is beyond my meagre capabilities.
Suffice to say, in part, the caption under the cartoon reads:
'The internet is God's gift to the bully..."
www.alliance.org.au will take you through to the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance site.
Cheers
Greg Ross
Minister for Good Times

The last thing we all need

Comment viewing options