What's The Goal Of Anti-Cyberbullying Moves?

from the treating-the-symptoms dept

The WSJ has a column talking about some changes sites like YouTube and MySpace are making to make it easier to flag abusive content. The sites are reacting to the growing storm about cyberbullying, and are perhaps attempting to head off legislation that could inflict onerous regulations on them. The column focuses on the speed with which sites — often hampered by sheer volume, as well as the number of unfounded reports — can react to the flags and take down offending content. But should removing content that depicts or constitutes bullying or harassment be the ultimate goal? Like other reporting systems, it’s a little hard to tell if these will actually do anything to get to the root of the problem: the bullying itself. Treating cyberbullying as separate and distinct from bullying or other abusive behavior that happens offline just masks the underlying issue. Without addressing that, the real problems for the victims will continue, regardless of whether their tormentors’ activities get displayed online or not.

Filed Under: ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “What's The Goal Of Anti-Cyberbullying Moves?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
trollificus says:

What's at work there...

…is a flaw in the dynamic of 21st century democracy. What will “sell”, or what can be sold, is what gets done.

Whatever can be reduced to a sound bite or a slogan (ex: forcing lenders to make bad loans in exchange for the political capital gained by characterizing it as “affordable housing”) gets priority in DC, whether it’s a “War on Drugs” (often persecuting constituents whose behavior, absent the illegality of drugs, would be otherwise unobjectionable), or paying off Archer Daniels Midland under a big American Gothic print and calling it “saving the family farm”, whatever sells the candidate* gets legislated.

Add this to the numerous stupidities done for the purpose, not of “protecting our children”, but of SELLING A CANDIDATE AS HAVING MADE AN EFFORT TO “protect our children”. Of course, it’s unsurprising that such efforts, made for ulterior and selfish motives, never achieve any such thing.

*-that is, “sells to the credulous, the naive, and the uninformed”.

Mark Regan says:

Pass Another Law

Why not just pass another law that REQUIRES all people to be NICE to each other?

If Barack Obama, George Bush, and John McCain can be nice to each other, then why should we lowly citizens be held to any lesser standard?

Forget “Freedom of Speech.” Our nation is in crisis. We should declare Martial Law and use the National Guard to enforce the “Be Nice” laws using instant execution if necessary.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Pass Another Law

While I agree with the notion of treating others the way you want to be treated, and respect our country’s leaders for setting a standard which we all can aspire to, I have to fully put my foot down and disagree with the idea of making it martial law and using the national guard for enforce behaviorism.

Obviously if people are whining, they have some inward or external need/condition they probably need to address before they can be fully content with themselves. Remember that the inward condition drives daily thoughts, and action.

But legislating it or creating an environment where enforced behaviorism is the ideal just makes the enforced non-enforced behavior fester in a way, until..

Anonymous Coward says:

I'll bet it's the corporations....

Trying to prevent us from telling each other how they are screwing us…

“Let’s face it; most of the large corporations are using very aggressive reverse SEO methods to bury the opinion of bloggers and others they fear. Why doesn’t congress just let the corporations send squads of goons over to shut down any newspaper that dares to speak the truth? They are doing the same thing online right now, so why aren’t they allowed to blockade the delivery gates at publishers and newspapers and be done with it??”


Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...