5 ms·

from : https://www.pandasecurity.com/mediacenter/panda-security/how-to-handle-online-harassment/ https://www.pandasecurity.com/mediacenter/panda-security/how...

by Udik 6y ago

from : https://www.pandasecurity.com/mediacenter/panda-security/how-to-handle-online-harassment/ https://www.pandasecurity.com/mediacenter/panda-security/how... "Cyberstalking is the act of using the Internet to systematically and repeatedly harass, threaten or intimidate someone. This can be done through email, social media, chat rooms, instant messaging or other online mediums." "Cyberstalking is a federal offense and many states have cyberstalking laws. Cyberstalking falls under anti-stalking, slander and harassment laws that are already in place and are punished similarly." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking "There have been a number of attempts by experts and legislators to define cyberstalking. It is generally understood to be the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, a group, or an organization. [...] Stalking is a continuous process, consisting of a series of actions, each of which may be entirely legal in itself." "Cyberstalking is a technologically-based "attack" on one person who has been targeted specifically for that attack for reasons of anger, revenge or control. Cyberstalking can take many forms, including: 1 - harassment, embarrassment and humiliation of the victim 2 - emptying bank accounts or other economic control such as ruining the victim's credit score 3 - harassing family, friends and employers to isolate the victim 4 - scare tactics to instill fear and more"

joshuamorton 6y ago
So are are suggesting that "I don't approve of your opinion on this topic" is equivalent to "threatening her with rape and strangulation, publishing her home address and Social Security number, and posting doctored photographs of her.", to quote the wikipedia article you linked? Or perhaps more specifically, can you present an example of cancelling that was done "specifically [...] for reasons of anger, revenge or control", and not due to other reasons, and that includes embarrassment and humiliation, economic control like ruining the credit score, harassing family and friends or employers, or scare tactics to instill fear? I can't. You trying to frame people being upset with someone's actions and expression views you disagree with as stalking is an interesting take, I'll give you that.
- Udik 6y ago
  > Or perhaps more specifically, can you present an example of cancelling that was done "specifically [...] for reasons of anger, revenge or control", and not due to other reasons, and that includes embarassment and humiliation, economic control like ruining the credit score, harassing family and friends or employers, or scare tactics to instill fear? Uh? Seriously? Just about any case of cancel culture. Anger? Check. Revenge? Check. Embarrassment and humiliation? Check. Harassing employers? Check. Scare tactics? Check. Just the James Damore case fits all these points, and it's just the first that comes to mind (but I think they all apply to almost all known cases).
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    You aren't reading carefully. I said and not due to other reasons. There are legitimate reasons to complain to someone's employer about their behavior. Damore's employer for example wasn't really targeted. I know, I worked there during the event. I commented on his doc before it was leaked to the press. Coworkers complained to Google leadership because Damore's document made them feel unwelcome. Ultimately it was for that reason that Damore was fired. Anger? No. Revenge? No. Harassing employers? Not really. Scare tactics? I can't recall anyone threatening Damore inside Google. It might have happened externally, but wasn't widespread. The issue that I keep trying to point out is that you're taking people's legitimate airing of concerns and claiming that it is done illegitimately. Ultimately you can't see other people's intentions. Framing all grievances you disagree with as illegitimate and made with only ill intent is a questionable practice. You can make the argument that everyone lied: that no one really felt unwelcome due to Damore's document, and that Google leadership agrees with you that he did nothing wrong but felt pressured to fire him anyway and that... But at that point you're taking your own preconceptions and applying them to everyone else, and assuming that only your view of the world is valid and that everyone who doesn't take the same meaning away from something that you do is acting in bad faith. That's not solid ground for claiming that someone is a criminal (you can apply the same reasoning and get "everyone who disagrees with me is a criminal", which I hope you'd agree isn't just).
    - Udik 6y ago

by Udik 6y ago

joshuamorton 6y ago

So are are suggesting that "I don't approve of your opinion on this topic" is equivalent to "threatening her with rape and strangulation, publishing her home address and Social Security number, and posting doctored photographs of her.", to quote the wikipedia article you linked? Or perhaps more specifically, can you present an example of cancelling that was done "specifically [...] for reasons of anger, revenge or control", and not due to other reasons, and that includes embarrassment and humiliation, economic control like ruining the credit score, harassing family and friends or employers, or scare tactics to instill fear? I can't. You trying to frame people being upset with someone's actions and expression views you disagree with as stalking is an interesting take, I'll give you that.

Udik 6y ago
> Or perhaps more specifically, can you present an example of cancelling that was done "specifically [...] for reasons of anger, revenge or control", and not due to other reasons, and that includes embarassment and humiliation, economic control like ruining the credit score, harassing family and friends or employers, or scare tactics to instill fear? Uh? Seriously? Just about any case of cancel culture. Anger? Check. Revenge? Check. Embarrassment and humiliation? Check. Harassing employers? Check. Scare tactics? Check. Just the James Damore case fits all these points, and it's just the first that comes to mind (but I think they all apply to almost all known cases).
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  You aren't reading carefully. I said and not due to other reasons. There are legitimate reasons to complain to someone's employer about their behavior. Damore's employer for example wasn't really targeted. I know, I worked there during the event. I commented on his doc before it was leaked to the press. Coworkers complained to Google leadership because Damore's document made them feel unwelcome. Ultimately it was for that reason that Damore was fired. Anger? No. Revenge? No. Harassing employers? Not really. Scare tactics? I can't recall anyone threatening Damore inside Google. It might have happened externally, but wasn't widespread. The issue that I keep trying to point out is that you're taking people's legitimate airing of concerns and claiming that it is done illegitimately. Ultimately you can't see other people's intentions. Framing all grievances you disagree with as illegitimate and made with only ill intent is a questionable practice. You can make the argument that everyone lied: that no one really felt unwelcome due to Damore's document, and that Google leadership agrees with you that he did nothing wrong but felt pressured to fire him anyway and that... But at that point you're taking your own preconceptions and applying them to everyone else, and assuming that only your view of the world is valid and that everyone who doesn't take the same meaning away from something that you do is acting in bad faith. That's not solid ground for claiming that someone is a criminal (you can apply the same reasoning and get "everyone who disagrees with me is a criminal", which I hope you'd agree isn't just).
  - Udik 6y ago