Good people sometimes do dumb things, or say something thoughtless.
But that’s not a good reason to damn them, or destroy their online reputation.
So I was alarmed to read about a new Kickstarter campaign for a website called Social Autopsy that aims to build a “digital footprint” database of those who use social media to spread hate.
Check out Social Autopsy’s FAQ for more details:
What is a digital footprint?
Users submit a screenshot of a person’s hate-fueled social media post, which is then used to create a profile that includes their full name, place of employment, city of residence and schools.How do you discover users real names?
Screenshots are submitted anonymously by online friends of that user. Their “friends” of course, know their full names and details.
Social Autopsy says it will officially launch when it has created 100,000 profiles (it claims to already have over 20,000) and is encouraging internet users to submit new entries.
Although I recognise the problems faced by the victims of online abuse, the idea of a website building a searchable database of “real profiles” of alleged culprits sends a shiver down my spine.
I’ll leave it to you, gentle reader, to imagine for yourself the ways in which such a scheme could go badly wrong and be easily abused.
Watch the following video where broadcaster, author and (in his past) Frank Sidebottom keyboard player Jon Ronson discusses public shaming on social media with Monica Lewinsky.
You can read more about Jon Ronson’s book, “So you’ve been publicly shamed”, on his website.
Yes, there are plenty of ghastly examples of people acting inappropriately and insensitively and aggressively online. Some even hide their true identities because they fear the repercussions if their identities are uncovered.
But I don’t think that gives the internet a green card to launch a witch-hunt.
There’s a real danger that if we attempt to fight trolls the wrong way, we end up acting like cyber-bullies ourselves. And innocent people could end up being hurt.
Be nice to each other. No-one is 100% bad. If someone is misbehaving online maybe all they really need is a bit of a hug. If that isn’t going to help, report abuse to the social network or the authorities – rather than add their details to a searchable database built by a private company.
Take a group (let's say 20 to 30 people) of different people (as in different backgrounds etc.) and ask them to define: 'hate' and 'trolling'. I imagine you'll get quite a lot of differences. Though I don't use social media I could easily see some of the things I write (and say) could be considered hateful. It doesn't mean I'm being hateful though; I can be quite cold/harsh/blunt with some things which might actually affect some people (you see?) in a negative way simply because they can't get beyond something. It's an oddity but many people want to be offended (etc.). Or I might be having a really bad day. Perhaps I'm angry at the person (or someone else). List goes on.
'There's a real danger that if we attempt to fight trolls the wrong way, we end up acting like cyber-bullies ourselves. And innocent people could end up being hurt.'
True. The following questions should also be considered (all of them):
1. Are there targets? If there are specific targets (e.g. individual) is that individual upset? If it's a group what is the overall view of that group?
2. Did the (supposed) troll have a chance to clarify themselves? Were they quoted out of context? Maybe those who were offended don't know something that actually explains things (including the supposed/possible hate) about the person?
3. Did they even bother asking the 'troll' to explain themselves? If not, why?
4. Is there a row between those involved? You sure of it? If not a row is there some kind of rivalry (friendly or not)? Jealousy? Children involved? Is there otherwise some
I suspect that questions #2, #3 and #4 (#1 is still important but I think the latter three are more important) won't be asked every single time and I have a real problem with that (and I suspect many others would too). It seems to me also that that is worse than what they are trying to call out.
Maybe these people should be doxed themselves? I wouldn't be surprised if this happens and frankly they are asking for it. They have it coming to them; if they don't respect people or are unable to see that doxing one person might actually harm others (and/or animals and other things) then why should anyone respect them? The answer: the people who respect them are better than these people. But not everyone will respect this (as this project demonstrates). Be very careful of what you wish for, people… it might haunt you, your friends or family for a long, long time… and you'll have brought it to yourself.
Wow.
The webpage asks you to anonymously identify people, send unverified screenshots of their private communication feeds, and then click a button labeled, "SEND TO THE MORGUE"
Yeah, there's nothing nice about a company that lets you send people anonymously TO THE MORGUE.
The psychological projection of bullies taken to the extreme here.
So not only are they hypocritical cowards but they are encouraging – and also advancing – hypocrisy and cowardice.
The way they word makes it even worse. These dieners are asking for trouble and I think it is trouble they will get (if they go through with this).
You put the final nail in the coffin; it is bullying to the extreme and they're bloody cowards.
They didn't set up DDoS protection, the "database" is searchable through Google, the site went active before they retained legal counsel — and they presume to be duly diligent enough to vet every profile that's submitted?
Just moments ago:
'Resource Limit Is Reached
The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later.'
I'm not sure if that is because they are so popular, they're incompetent in system administration or something else, but that error did come back quite fast.
Edit: And they naturally went for whois privacy because indeed they are cowards. But even if it isn’t as easy to get their name/address/etc. it isn’t impossible. Even if that is by phishing. Perhaps by:
[email protected]
?
Just to save people the effort, see? :)
Clearly will be misused and abused. Whatever, anyone with integrity won't be giving this site and credence or credibility. People who are loved by many, but are in opposition to an ideology, narrative or idea will end up on the site proving the farcical nature of the site.
Personally, I'm all for a little hate. A little hate can go a long way.
Hate can be a good thing.
If you are satisfied – or at best apathetic – about something it's unlikely to change much.
You hate something enough and you will change it. Hate, like any other tool – it's how it's used as to what it does. You hold any tool right and you have a weapon. A screwdriver can be a tool of construction as much as an impliment of throat friendly stabby wetness. Any problems that stem from use thus are not addressed by blaming the screwdriver. The only sane counterance is to address the best way to use a particular tool, for a particular purpose.
The critical flaw in their "business model" is that it depends on people divulging third parties identities. What incentive would they have to do this? Just for the lulz? Sure the abused might have incentive but people what supposedly like them, the ones privvy to details will unlikely feature such.
Looking through their proposal I see no viable commercial return, beyond extortion to get yourself removed from the list. To take a notable qoute from thier spiel: "We will devote all remaining funds toward our legal team, which we are going to need intact when we bring this site live." They will need them indeed. The 'tards are talking about free speech yet they fail to realise that in most civilised countries collecting and storing personal data without permission of the impacted identity is a crime. And isn't an accepted form of speech. Companies like facebook can get away with ToS that errode your rights as far as the law will allow on this subject because it's you putting the data into their mine, you have the authority to release it. There's no way their model can equate anything but data theft. Third parties imparting data they had no legal right to. Unless they plan on powering it entirely by OSint.
I doubt they even know what OSint is. They seem to require funding to even create and propagate a database. There's not even the blonde blonde excuse there. Surely MySQL isn't that hard. To take another great qoute "Yup. We consider ourselves to be patriots." – I'm sure this will come as a great surprise, the day they actually learn this, but very little of the internet actually resides in USA. Ergo the entire premise utilising the constitution as a defence will be amusing to watch as they have court appearances in Germany about collection of personal data of thier citizens. Whilst I'm digging into them with qoutes: "Let's launch a database where we capture them exercising those rights and create digital records for them that anyone can access." – Combine this with the panel of "pledge rewards" on the right, under the $1000 pledge "-Follow any person or company on our database, free of charge for 1 year." So, what they mean is: create digital records for them that anyone can access. For a fee. Maybe that's how they plan on monetirising this. Critical flaw here, is who the fuck wants to "follow" their tourmentor? I love it when people think things through. These are the toys that don't need batteries. What sort of fee would this require to be, to stay on top of server costs, staff wages, full time legal team constantly in use etc?
Screenshots as evidence? That sounds like the sort of thing suitable to submit as evidence in a court of law. It's a good thing there isn't software that can easily edit images, some sort of one-stop-shop for photo manipulation. Could make you "say" whatever I wanted.
At best I'd expect this "service" to be composed entirely of petty squabbles, and poetically, the playground of trolls. A quick visit to the blog they link to will tell you all you need to know about the sort of mindest involved here. Their food will stay down longer than this site stays up. The way they start they pitch with a shot of 8 females as opposed to a sound business proposal suggests they plan on moving most of the distance by virtue of "look at me, I'm pretty". Sounds like a solid investment. They'd do well on "dragons den".
I honestly question what this Candace could geniunely bring of worth to TEDx. "I woke up one day with the unshakeable realization that I had to change the world in a really big way" – It must surely be something epic she is planning. Look at things other people are doing in TEDx. There's some real visionaries there. People making active changes to the world, and how it works generally for the betterment of all. You want to look at things that will change the world in a big way then gander things like Rachel Armstrong's research into protocell enginering, which combined with a few other technologies potentially allows for growing organic carbon negative structures that self repair and live in biostasis with the residents. Adjusting itself to suit future needs. But I suppose that's trivial compared to an archive of mean things someone said to me when I set something stupid as my status on tw@r. Surely being able to park asteroids in cislunar orbit for resource extraction combined with offworld manufacturing and farming in order to stop using the finite resources available planetside and to reduce ecological footprint of goods production does somewhat pale in comparison to technological feat of searching the bad man who hurt my feels and find he's Tony and he works for Pizza Hut. As if people can't do this already or something. If she'd really like to generate an impact on the online bulling scene then the logical discourse is to address the parenting deficit that lead to the creation of these charactors in the first place. I accept it may be a little expectant to hope for logic around two X chromosomes.
"Inapproptiate behavour" is handled already in most social media circles, I would of thought. I've not looked. Any resposnsible – or at least pretending to be responsible – service will have procedures and staff in place to handle this. At least is my expectations. I'm not eager enough to sell my personal data for the use of a website in order to find out. I'm not even that sociable. Should this not be the case, then that's another excuse to find a more agreeable service. Regardless, I see no tangible services offered here. Only data raped. With poor excuses, and ethically questionable methods. Likely for profit or tactical advantage/manipulation at some point. But there again I think that of other "social media" and that seems popular, so what do I know.
At the end of the day, the interwebs is a big place. You don't like the people in one part of it then play somewhere else. You could even make a new chunk of it that is just how you like it.
IMHO being "doxed" just means you've made online mistakes. A lot of them. Enough to lead a path to who you actually are. Arguably too late, but maybe a lesson may be learned at the end of it.
It's only information, after all. If they didn't want it made public, they'd not of placed that data in places(ie: the interwebs) that tools like maltego can keep pulling on a thread until the entire fabric of their lives are contained in a graph.
That said I have noted a disturbing trend where people pay no heed to what data they place in what mine – Generally with lame excuses like "I'm doing nothing wrong" or "I don't care if they see me talking about funny cats with Jack" or the ever classic "I have nothing to hide". To that last one I typically respond: Then publish your medical history. This instantly leaves most people feeling uncomfortable and at least gets them thinking that maybe not all data should be made publicly available. The lack of foresight into the potential uses for this data – and all the uses not yet found, as this is being stored long term – is truely staggering. Even for humans.
If they are unable to see potential uses for, then surely they must be able to see the cost of retaining it. To assume a service has 1,000,000 users, and on average each user knows 20 other users, and each person was to say "hi" – just those two letters – to each person they know, once a day. How many days before you've filled a 1TB HD with "hi"? In reality we're talking about a lot more than 1,000,000 users. And a lot longer, and more frequent messages than the "hi" example. Audio, Video, links, anything moving into the mine hoovered up and stored. Then add in all the metadata the users generate through use. Start working out what it'll cost to keep that many HD's spinning alone(FB actually have all operations in RAM, using HD for "backup". How much RAM you think that takes?). Let alone the servers powering them. I mapped FB's infrastructure in this country a few years back for giggles and they had more than 4 DNS servers just for handling internal requests. Long story short there's a lot of infrastructure hoovering up a lot of money to keep running. Why is it people don't seem concerned that this level of expenditure is undertaken just to "see me talking about funny cats with Jack". How is it that when someone starts building a stick to hit them with, they think it's clever to run around putting nails in it?
To qoute coyote above me: "it might haunt you, your friends or family for a long, long time… and you'll have brought it to yourself." Brought it upon themselves indeed – but as they've been retarded enough to accept it, now I'm expected to. Almost robs the humour out the inevitable pointing and laughing that will ensue.
This isn't merely a bad idea, it's illegal. They actively boast that they plan to gather information on minors and actively seek to ruin people's relationships and careers by exposing damning information (much of which is likely untrue) as if there's no problem.
Considering you can't legally track the information of people under 13, and this kind of datamining and doxxing isn't exactly viewed favorably by courts of law, this startup shouldn't even make it out of the conception phase.
What makes you call these "good people?" They intend to dox, harass, and bully people they don't like. How does that make them any different than any other online bullies? EVERY evil person thinks they're doing the right thing.
Illegal projects such as this should not be allowed on Kickstarter etc. OR is it time for me to get backing for my Road Rage Laser…
The U.S. Government is the GRAND MARSHALL of data-mining and the NSA houses this data in mega-mega-sized structures at the expense of the taxpayer (ho hum). And that's OK. But it is not OK to put a scarlet letter on trolls whose primary enjoyment in life is to defame others?
There are two powerful interacting factors that produce trolls…(1) immaturity and (2) anonyminity.
Together they empower inadequate and otherwise empty individuals to rise to the surface like cream, forming a larger-than life persona that contradicts how they are in real life…powerless, nameless, creepy, friendless, anxious and insecure…and above all jealous of others who actually have a life.
Social media attracts immaturity like honey attracts flies. It behooves more mature individuals to cultivate face-to-ace friendships instead and steer clear of social media altogether. But you perhaps have obsered this, too: people in today's world — here and abroad — are clearly loosing their friendship skills and grammatical writing skills, forsaking them for hashtags and brevity and meaningless one-liners.
Data-mining is going to happen but you can avoid it to a large degree by using simpler phones less often, and by hanging out with real people in real time. Use the Internet for research instead of as a 24-hour forum personal connection with other faceless people.
Facebook is being used in exactly the ways noted above to atteact an increasingly toxic assemblage of people so depraved that terror is their primary preoccupation. This represents immaturity and anonymity at its extreme. Spammers and trolls who spread viruses etc., fall just slightly short of this continuum with terrorism at the most extreme end. The continuum also attracts and houses child abductors, stalkers, murders, druggies looking for victims…
So why even go there?? Healthy and mature people who collectively vacate Facebook could literally put them out of business. Then we could focus on the trolls and all those other unhealthy people with even worse personality dysfunctions. And entrap them!
Think about it, eh?
You defined Troll very rigidly, the problem is that some define it very loosely, something along the lines of "anyone who disagrees with me".
one day people will eventually learn to quit feeding trolls , but I doubt that'll happen so long as people insist on being human in an non human world
Grand marshall? LOL. Granted, they moved a little forwards since copying the SOE by fabricating the CIA but never forget they're at least two decades(more accurately, a few centuries) behind just in knowing about the devious tricks game, let alone how to play it.
You talk as if most American citizens appreciate or agree with datacenters like bluffdale. As if they wanted this sort of thing, specifically. That they like paying for what is effectively a waste of time, elecricity, and bandwidth. Where did you do your market research on this one? I'd honestly peg the larger percentile as preffering not to think about it as it would involve them thinking other things which will challenge long held beliefs. Entertaining that the "system" isn't rigged up for their benefit will shatter their little world. Those that do allow themselves to think of such are equally preturbed as anyone else.
Just because they are too simple to realise that their constitutional rights allow them to bear arms so they can rise up against such tyranical oppression doesn't mean they like being slowly boxed into the corner. Ofc that would mean working together so the govmnt has a slight advantage there. Then consider they all(mostly) programmed nicely to pay they taxes under the threat of violence. It's really not difficult to see how this happens. And it's not a direct response to the needs or wants of the populous.
As appears to be the norm, governments do as they choose in their home country. For some reason there's some sort of general unspoken concensus between Americans that the entire planet is their country and subject to their law. Or maybe they just can't think outside of the little bubble they habitate. The one built and reinforced by decades of propaganda that scars so deep still to this day some people that never experienced the "cold war" will still spit feathers at the mention of communism.
The people and various processes are meer formalities. Only there to absorb the blame when things go wrong. The system is set up in enough ways so there's ability to bypass any of that if they start losing too badly. For example, a recently recjected bill included in the body of a longer boring bill that no-one will read. If determined attempts will be repeatedly made – potentially adjusting "popular opinion" through media manipulation etc – until it gets in. No matter how vigilant the opposition it only takes one lax moment. One tiny spot of attention deficit. Should that not occur, then it'll happen behind closed doors. Can't come in here, matters of national security. Now stop it.
To take "recent" events into account, Consider "terrorists" in Paris. Smoke hadn't cleared and there was talk of encryption bans on comms. Doesn't matter they were using SMS comms in plaintext, that's too much logic. We can't see inside encryption and that's going to stop. Consider "terrorists" in Brussels. More talk of anti-encryption legislation. Again, plaintext comms and "burner phones" utilised. Now should you start examining the international phone intercept initatives you'll become rapidly convinced that all concerned state-run suecurity services intercepted these messages. It's not really possible to move them, over the conventional network, without. That's the point of these initiatives. As is the processing of these messages(say, in the Debogon project on the west coast of Oz). Yet these events, and many more like them, still happened. This either proves the long term worth of such a project, or confirms this is part of the plan to sway public opinion. Or both. I'll leave you to decide.
Immaturity does play a large part in trollish behaviour – But you'll troll, if you will troll, regardless of people knowing who you are. It's who you are. Immaturity alone doesn't pull the right strings. That will leave them just sat giggling at fart noises. Anonyminity isn't a factor in this equasion. To consider the model used in this example is docile media. Sorry, social media. They have a monetary incentive to find out who they users are. Some are wuite good at it. Most users are simple enough to leak that much data that fingerprinting them just by their hardware/software payload – let alone their browsing habits and other behavioural cues, and we'll ignore things like subsonic comms between devices(ie: the advert on the webpage emitting a tone picked up by their smartphone) – pinning to an ID is trivial.
Larger factors are things like boredom. I personally think this is little excuse – it's not as if there's any shortages of things to do – but it does factor heavily. Then they must have some incentive. Some sort of trigger that makes that one stand out as a target. Commonly something retarded set as a status – something like: "I just watched Titanic. Much sad. Imagine if that happened in real life" – something that possibly does merit abuse. Not always, but it's frequent. With a lack of "worthy" targets the determined will pick up on any thread they think they can pull to unravel the garment. The higher grade trolls will set the bait and wait for the victims to come to them. The best can place one comment and then sit back and laugh as they fight between themselves.
No matter the methodology, they are all seeking entertainment in the friction generated. That's what produces trolls. Not anonyminity.
There are undeniably those that would fit into your descript of the contrary persona of their online counterpart, But in my experience the better part of them are just "normal people". There's possibly some room for argument on the insecurity angle, but I know many who like nothing better than a good troll after dinner, to offset a hard days work. People with wives(Or husbands, wimmins can troll too. Noteably rarer.), kids, no noteworthy "deficit" in their lives. When they tell someone that just cut themselves that it wasn't deep enough I find it difficult to imagine this is because they are jealous of their life.
Anonyminity, if chosen, is one of the most important facets of the interwebs. It only provides freedom. Ofc, this is no assurance you will use that freedom wisely. Like the ability to move data across systems in an accurate dependable manner, anonyminity is a critical component, if a little troublesome at times. To resurect my earlier screwdriver example it is not the tool that is the problem, but how it is used.
Any attacks upon anonyminity or attempts to detriment it's effectiveness(say, the massive funding Akamai technologies obtains to run most of the high speed TOR exit nodes, and the global sniffer deployment posed as CDN's) should be met with much predjudice. Preferably extreme violence to discourage further attempts.
Honey attracts ants faster than flies. Put down a plate in the garden and an hour later count how many ants are stuck to it, and how many flies. The drone-like tendancies put docile media users much more into an ant analogy – and just like the plate – attracted to the sugary sweetnesses by the time they realise what they've done they've bonded themselves to the surface. The rush of other ants to get to the sugary sweetness pressing them further until they begin to suffocate.
Social media tends to attract people incapable of thinking more than one move ahead. Or they'd spot the game on the table, laugh and walk away. Naturally there is a good percentage of immaturity – but I'd wager no more than any other broad sample.
Data mining will occur. Because no one chopped off their head and put it on a spike as an example to the rest the first time they tried it. Instead it was met with open arms and gratuitous funding. They only try it because they know that they will away get with it.
A good example here is ISP's. There was once a time when you could actually trust your ISP to deliver to you the interwebs, as it is. Then someone thought it was clever to start collating data for advertising purposes. As they got away with it, ISP's thought "I can sniff more traffic to/from more places than you. I can moneterise that data – that I've already been paid to move" and they did. Some even adjusting served page code to insert their own clients adverts, replacing the ones that previously resided. And that's the nicer side of how they manipulate traffic.
The introduction of data caps is another good proof of concept. You pay a metered rate for interwebs, measured in bytes per second. Regardless of if you consume that you're paying for it. Then in an attempt to make you pay for it twice, one ISP imposed a upper total limit of bytes, well under the potential of the capacity you've just been sold, if you was to use it to the extent you have already paid for – with the limit waivered or extended for a fee. No one smashed their exhanges for taking the piss. Instead, they paid the fee. Other ISP's followed suit. Now data caps are a common feature of contracts.
Social media, like portable spyware devices that track your every movement, you did not just bring this upon yourselves but it was welcomed with open arms – With those arms not in the air rejoicing busy throwing money at it. What did you honestly expect to happen next?
The solution is to not enter the data into the mine, if possible. Any data that is entered should be false, preferably contradicting previously entered data.
If one was to impliment a project that results in some sort of bot that randomly makes and breaks connections, likes various things, clicks links and holds the page open for variable amounts of time etc and this was run on the larger percentages of accoutns, then it's concivable to generate enough noise to confuse they AI to the point that all the data in the mine is meaningless.
Then it's just hemmoraging money and will soon die. Further sponsoring of the initative will be pulled as it offers no viable return. Evacuating the "healthy and mature" people will still lead them with a mass of tangible data. Further, how would you propose keeping the "immature" from the proposed replacement system? I phear whatever measures you envision already exist in some form in the current systems. I personally don't think there is need for a replacement, but there are many now that cannot recall a life before FB or Google..
Far better to poison the pool. Watch all who drink from it die slowly and painfully. Point and laugh.
Alternately, you could just use a service that can be trusted to begin with, actively destroying that which is untrustable.
Mentally unhealthy and dysfunctional people don't require trapping. It's better to leave them to roam. If worried about their impact, then given enough time they will provide enough examples to rob all future words or interactions of any noteworthy value. Over time their own actions will define who they are and what they are about. You use this to define if you would or would not like to interact with these people.
One key thing overlooked in these affairs is no-one forces you to associate with these people, or to be in the same environment they are in. Computers do as they are told, it's what they are for. IF you really never wanted to see them again you wouldn't. Either by filtering or simply removing yourself from the environment if they do not have the good manners to do so on your behalf.
Not enough people shoulder the burden of responsibility that they themselves have caused. Usually the same sort of person that can't think more than one step in front of what they are doing. These are the people that really need stopping. Their lack of foresight or understanding of the consequences to their actions simply generates a minefield for everyone else.
Quit feedin trolls?
That doesn't sound very clever.
Who wants to eat skinny troll?
"You talk as if most American citizens appreciate or agree with datacenters like bluffdale. As if they wanted this sort of thing, specifically."
___________________________________________________________________________
I did not say this at all…this is your interpretation which I do not own.
I think the NSA is here to stay, not that I condone it. The CONSTITUTION does not condone it.
Americans who fear terrorism and want the GOVERNMENT to take care of them are the problem. I can take care of myself.
Americans who love LIBERTY do not espouse the NSA. Freedom loving Americans do not espouse the NSA, either. Nor do they want the bloated federal government that we have today.
There is something you can do about that.
Both the existence and purpose of the NSA, and the federal government.
Unfortunately it will require working together, which is where I predict the problems to start. Divided you are easily conquered.
If it is truely unconstitutional as you claim, then why have you(as a populous, as much as an individual) not demanded it's destruction? I'm not overly hot on such things admittedly, but I was under the impression your constitution sets into law various rights. It also sets into law what you can do about it, should this not be adhered to. This is why you are allowed to bear arms(And why there's a general trend to attempt this errode this right.). So when things like this happen, and pleas for sanity are inevitably ignored you can take steps.
I am aware you were trying to establish some sort of goose/gander ideology with regards to data hoarding, as opposed to decrying the practice outright, but the opening statement suggests overall complacency as to it's existence. Which as it's still standing I must suppose holds some measure of truth. Can't recall talking to someone outside of the security services that thinks it's a good idea, however. Needs more hate. Hate it enough and you'll inspire motivation to change it.
Capitalising words that are not acronyms in a body of text containing capitalised acronyms possibly isn't the best way to add emphisis. The words you choose to capitalise are interesting within themselves. You might want to keep an eye on that.
Its being DDoSed by a lot of people. Its organized too.
Id rather have the trolls than an internet where people cant say whats on their minds, no matter what that is! Haters hating, lovers loving, that ought to even out and does. As for kids, parents need to watch out for them more and keep an eye on what they are doing online. I see social autopsy as just another way to sell out, control free speech on the internet and make money doing it. If that sounds cynical its because I find the whole notion cynical.
I think the very first profile I will submit will be that of the Social Autopsy website and team members because frankly, they are doing to others what they say they want to stop. Do you know how easy it is to fake a post or a comment from the web? There will be no mechanism to verify truth. This company will be sued into oblivion and quickly because I assure you they have no safeguards and they are the very same bullies they claim to hate.
The whole point of trolling is that they are anonymous. The threat of exposure would tend to eliminate this.
Extensive use of Social Autopsy a planned doxxing tool, they would not slow it implementation just because its is illegal. That is as long as no one stops them. Certainly other means will be tried, like bad legislation using the state under some "safety" guise. I think of the French Revolution and Robespierre's Committee of Public Safety and Law of 22 Prairial.
If you look at our countries founders like Ben Franklin, just a few years before he was born you had things happening like the Salem Witch trials (mostly perpetrated by women). Our founders were well aware how unjust people could be to each other.
In this case trolls (the devil) or heretics who do not believe in the religion of the progressive left must be cast out and deprived of employment. The best heretics are the ones who are unaware they are in a state of sin who need to be cleansed. This is the current rule today in 2016.