Anonymous Anger Rampant on Internet

by Todd Leopold

There's a whole world of people out there, and boy, are they pissed off.

On political blogs, the invective flies. Posters respond to the latest celebrity gossip with mockery or worse. Sports fans set up Web sites with names that begin with "fire," hoping coaches, athletic directors and sportscasters lose their jobs.

And though there are any number of bloggers and commenters who attempt to keep their postings and responses on a civil level, all too often interactive Web sites descend into ad hominem attacks, insults and plain old name-calling. Indeed, there are even whole sites devoted to venting, such as justrage.com (one screed there was titled, "I don't give a flying f***, so f*** you") and mybiggestcomplaint.com.

This is not a world Emily Post would want to be caught in after dark.

"The Internet can be a great tool," said Sara Black, a professor of health studies at St. Joseph's University who takes a particular interest in online bullying. "Like any tool, it can also be misused."

One reason for the vitriol that emerges on the Web, experts say, is the anonymity the Internet provides. Commenters seldom use their real names, and even if they do, the chance for retaliation is slim.

"In the [pre-Internet era], you had to take ownership [of your remarks]. Now there's a perception of anonymity," said Lesley Withers, a professor of communication at Central Michigan University. "People think what they say won't have repercussions, and they don't think they have to soften their comments."

Contrast that with a face-to-face conversation, or even a phone conversation, where you can judge people's moods from facial movements or vocal inflections, observes University of Texas psychology professor Art Markman. iReport.com: Second Life avatars grapple with reduced nonverbal communication

"It's hard to be aggressive when you're face to face," he said.

Moreover, he points out, aggression often carries a subtext of power.

"A lot of times, real anger is an attempt to get control over a situation where the person doesn't usually have it," he said. In that respect, comments to blog posts are attempts to strike back.

Those power games are innately grasped by children and teens, with schools serving as a perennial social laboratory.

Cheryl Dellasega, a Penn State women's studies professor, ticks off hypothetical examples that could have come straight from the scripts to "Mean Girls" or "Heathers."

"Girls who are getting teased come home and let their [aggressors] have it by putting something on their blog and starting a rumor campaign," she said. And instead of rumors simply making the rounds among peer groups -- which can be bad enough -- "they go out to a much bigger group, a worldwide group. The impact is devastating, and it's as easy as clicking a button."

"Kids don't realize that one post can destroy somebody's life forever," she added.

Indeed, such incidents have made headlines. In 2006, 13-year-old Megan Meier committed suicide after becoming attracted to a boy on MySpace who then turned on her. The boy turned out to be a hoax created by a neighbor family that included a former friend of Meier's.

In August, The New York Times Magazine did a story about trolls, some barely out of their teens, who antagonize others for the sake of "lulz": "Lulz is watching someone lose their mind at their computer 2,000 miles away while you chat with friends and laugh," one ex-troll told the publication.

Adults aren't immune by any means. A Japanese woman, angry at her online "husband," killed his avatar after he divorced her. A South Korean actress committed suicide after being harassed by online rumors following a divorce. Celebrity gossip sites are full of snarky comments about stars; reaction from readers is often brutal, turning the story into the online equivalent of a pile-on.

Markman is quick to observe that he doesn't believe there's more anger out there. But, he said, "there are more ways of expressing it on the Internet."

"We've all had interactions with unpleasant people, but we don't confront them. We take it out elsewhere," he said. "What the Internet has created is groups of people where there are no repercussions with being too aggressive."

Indeed, though electronically transmitted anger has parallels throughout human history -- the bitter letter, the village gossip -- the speed at which it travels, and the number of people who may come in contact with it, is something new, says St. Joseph's Black.

"[Electronic] media can increase potential for violence in a number of ways," she said in an e-mail interview. "First, it introduces ideas (good and bad) that people may not have come up with on their own. Second, it is easier to depersonalize the victim, facilitating perpetration. Third, aggressive behaviors may be reinforced with points, attention or status, especially in games."

Withers has seen that first hand. She teaches a course on the "dark side of communication" at Central Michigan, involving "the mean or evil things we do on a day-to-day basis," as she describes it: cheating, for example, or lying.

As part of the course, several of her students work on a collaborative project with students at other schools, and they come together in Second Life, the virtual reality environment. If someone isn't pulling his or her weight, says Withers, others can be harsh in their judgments -- harsher than in real life, because the anger is expressed at the person's avatar. Sidebar: Dealing with anger in Second Life

Which led at least one of Withers' students to forget that the avatar was attached to a real person.

"One student went off on another student and she was sitting in the classroom a few rows behind him," she said. "He knew she was there, but didn't -- there was that distancing."

Is there a way to restore civility to the Internet? Among children and teenagers, say Dellasega and Black, it's up to parents to exercise control.

"I think parents need to take responsibility," Dellasega said. "They give kids computers and leave them alone. ... When a child is 8 or 9, the computer should be in a public place. Kids should understand that using a computer is a privilege, not a right."

Schools can also play a role, she says.

Black adds that parents should set clear rules on behavior and build empathy in their kids by having them reach out to those who are different.

As for adults, human nature dictates that people will always lash out at others, whether it's over a perceived insult or simply because of a power differential. Web sites may ban the worst offenders, but they'll almost always pop up elsewhere, using a different name, e-mail address or even computer.

"Some people are just bitter and angry," said psychiatrist Dr. Terry Eagan, medical director of the Moonview Sanctuary in Santa Monica, California. "Sometimes, they're against everyone, other times against a specific group. That person can get really stimulated and can say all sorts of horrible things. But I don't think it's not like they didn't exist before."

Whether the problem will get control of us, or we will get control of the problem, is in the way we face up to it, he says. Anger, he says, is rolled up with anxiety and fear, and nothing creates more fear like a lack of understanding.

"I tell patients that I'd rather know everything about people; information is powerful," he said. "When the climate of the world is more fear-based, it permeates everything."



ORIGINAL ARTICLE FOUND HERE


SITES BY VICTIMS OF CYBERPATHS
(we believe many of these people have a right to be upset and using writing as a healing & informational tool for them can be very empowering)

Cyberstalker: Felicity Jane Lowde

Marilyn McAboy

The Laura Knight-Jadczyk Fraud

Harassment is My Job

Nancy Lynne

Too Good To Be Real

Kim Stewart - Bink, Briesis, Allie

Victim of Gareth Rodger Speaks Out

Judy Lyman (?)
Jakob Maltese

One Victim of William Michael Barber Tells Their Story

Sandra Brown MA - No License 


(readers -- if you know of others, please tell us!  thanks to those who sent us these)

Being 'Anonymous' Online Changes People's Behavior

Faceless communication online or over phone often turns nice people nasty
By Diane Mapes


(excerpts)
One minute, they’re nice, normal people. The next, they’re frothing at the mouse.

“It’s mind-boggling the things people will say and even the things I will say,” says Catherine McIntyre, a 38-year-old medical billing specialist from Houston. “People who’d never say something horrible in real life will do it again and again and again online. It’s like the behavior of crowds, or those mass beatings where no one gets blamed because everyone’s at fault.”

Sheri Pineda, a 59-year-old customer service representative at the Daily Breeze in Torrance, Calif., encounters the same bad behavior in the after-hours messages left by her newspaper’s subscribers.

“It’s appalling the way people talk,” Pineda says. “They’ll rant and rave and cuss at us with extremely foul language. And I think a lot them specifically wait until we close the phones. They’re looking to let it all out and then get on with their day. And then they’re surprised when I get back to them. They’re like, ‘You actually heard that?’ and will be embarrassed.”

Hello. You have reached the split personality zone. Press 1 to melt down. Press 2 to hang up and act like a normal person again.

I, anonymous
Between out-of-control customers, vituperative online posters and road-raging drivers, it’s hard to find an individual who hasn’t succumbed to the siren song of faceless, consequence-free communication. Online boards are clogged with insults hurled by readers hiding behind deceptively mild screen names — (“I hope you rot in hell!” signed Kittyface) — and customer service reps endure blistering tirades from disembodied voices week in and week out.

These days there are a dozen ways to communicate without actually having to look somebody in the eye. As a result, not only have we developed an abrupt, abbreviated way to chat (IMHO), but our technological advances have spawned new psychological terms such as “online disinhibition effect” to explain our tendency to open up — in both good ways and bad — when we’re sitting in front of a screen.

In a February 2008 study published in the journal Psychological Reports, researchers found that out of four groups of participants, only those in the anonymous group took part in antisocial behavior — in this case defined as violating rules to obtain a reward.

“I definitely believe that anonymity affects the frequency of antisocial behavior among individuals to some extent, even when these individuals have a reasonable sense of morality — so-called ‘ordinary people,’” says study author Tatsuya Nogami of Nagoya University in Japan.

“In my personal opinion, people generally try to comply with social norms in everyday life, even when such compliance with norms and rules conflicts with their personal self-interests. However, if you can get what you want without receiving any punishment or negative evaluations from others, are you still 100 percent sure that you’ll always refrain from engaging in that kind of undesirable behavior?”

Rage against the machine
...
McIntyre, the billing specialist from Houston, says the online news forums she’s participated in over the years have led her down many a dark and dysfunctional corridor.

“People get sucked in,” she says. “You can be whoever you want, you can put out there whatever you want, and there are no consequences. I even got sucked in and was mean to people. I consider myself better than that, but I did it too, and that bothers me. I guess it’s just the dynamic.”

Rider University psychology professor John Suler wrote about this dynamic in his 2004 paper “The Online Disinhibition Effect.” In it, he describes both toxic disinhibition — angry, threatening behavior such as that seen in flame wars or cyberbullying — and benign disinhibition, in which people make overly personal revelations due to the intimate nature of the medium. (Think online daters who “fall in love” without ever meeting.)

A lot of this effect has to do with feedback — or lack thereof, says Wallace.

“The environment affects how you behave,” she says. “Any time you go to places where you’re not known — even if it’s a hotel in another city — you might be more aggressive. So when you construct an environment like the Internet or long-distance call centers with a help desk worker in Bangalore, you’re creating an environment that facilitates uncharacteristic behavior.

You’re not getting those nonverbal cues that calibrate your behavior and give you feedback if you’re going off track. Those people who do customer service for Comcast probably need double doses of Zoloft.”

Cherise Oleksak, a 35-year-old cable TV customer service representative from Fife, Wash., says dealing with people’s disinhibited side can definitely be a challenge. Some scream and rage; others get a little more, uh, personal.

“You’ll get people who will turn into perverts,” she says. ”They’ll ask you out or ask you to do (FREE) phone sex. They’ll be like, ‘Can you read those pay-per-view adult movie titles out loud to me again?’”

Robin Taylor, 42, a customer care representative from Nashville, Tenn., says she’s seen this split, as well.
...

“I guess they feel they can say whatever they want because they’re anonymous, but the funny thing is we have all their information: their name, their address, their phone number, even part of their Social Security number.

Not that I would ever retaliate, but if we ended up with some psycho (employee), it could happen.”

Going public
Interestingly enough, some folks are starting to retaliate.

Surreptitious tape recordings of outrageously bad customer behavior have started to pop up on YouTube in all their profanity-laced glory.

In 2004, comedienne Margaret Cho posted dozens of hateful e-mail messages she’d received in response to a monologue on her Web site, along with each sender’s full name and e-mail address. Shamed — and deluged with their own hate mail from Cho’s fans — some posters sent in abject letters of apology.

In the online world, abusive users hiding behind anonymous screen names are being outed, sometimes to huge public embarrassment as when Whole Foods chief executive John Mackey was unmasked as the sock puppet responsible for posting numerous attacks against competitors on a Yahoo! financial message board.

And media sites from Sacramento to Soho are stepping up their moderation of anonymous comments in an attempt to keep the incivility down to a low roar.

“When we first started with online blogs and that sort of thing, people weren’t aware of how much the environment could affect their behavior, but now people are getting much more savvy about it,” Wallace says. “But the issue that needs to be considered now is there’s no privacy. People need to recognize that they just can’t send out these blogging responses and e-mails and expect their anonymity to be preserved. It probably won’t be.

Recording devices are everywhere and Web 2.0, with its user-generated content, greatly amplifies the Net’s power to expose and publicize.

“It also archives forever.”

(full article found here)

(please see our far right column for a few of the VICTIMS of Exposed Predators and how they fought back against smear and lies from the Exposed Predators)

Internet Harasser Lured into Harassing Police

by John Timmer

(CANADA) A strange case of online harassment, complete with the usual police who would do nothing, may finally be coming to a close. A Montreal citizen who went by the online handle of Dave Mabus has been targeting the atheist and skeptic communities with threats and harassment for years. But Mabus' ability to target his threat was pretty limited (he often went after scientific journalists, including me), and that proved to be his downfall. Some clever Twitter users managed to redirect his rage-filled missives, first to a journalist in his home town of Montreal, and ultimately to the Montreal police department.

The person who goes by the name of Dave Mabus has apparently been at this for a while, as noted atheist PZ Myers claims to have been getting material from him for nearly two decades. Apparently inspired by fervent beliefs in both religion and the prophecies of Nostradamus, Mabus was incensed by the mere existence of atheists and skeptics who raised questions about them, such as Richard Dawkins, James Randi, and Michael Shermer. Starting with e-mail and newsgroups, Mabus sent off angry and vulgar rants to an ever-widening circle of targets. He also moved with the times, adding additional media for his anger: Web discussion boards, various blogs he opened and, eventually, Twitter.

Whatever else this behavior said about his mental state, Mabus did demonstrate impressive patience. As soon as one e-mail service or blog host closed off an account due to complaints of harassment, another would be opened. Evidence from various IP address traces showed he often connected via public computers or open WiFi hotspots scattered around Montreal.

Over time, he broadened his target list to the point of carelessness. "I don't think I ever said anything that directly set him off, in that I am not part of the atheist/skeptic community, which seemed to be his main targets," science writer Maryn McKenna told Ars. "I assume I was just collateral damage for being on the same RT strings as others he was more interested in."

I had largely the same experience, as did writer Carl Zimmer, who shared an archive of some of the e-mails he's received from Mabus over the years.

Many of these were simply vulgar rants against anyone who promoted atheism or questioned Nostradamus. But there are a number that clearly imply a threat: "Kicking in the heads of atheists one at a time...," "now we are going to bury you...," "we're this far from nuking all of you...." But many of the recipients also reported obvious threats to themselves and their families. More worrying still, the Atheist Alliance International held its convention in Montreal in 2010, a move that sparked this response from Mabus, found in one of Zimmer's e-mails: "NEW GAME WITH YOU LITTLE F*CKERS - SPEAK N DIE." And then, reportedly, Mabus' real-life counterpart did show up at the meeting.

Many others have suggested Mabus' imagery grew increasingly unnerving. "Whether he would ever get violent, I don't know," Zimmer said. "But he was a disturbing figure in many people's lives."

Behind the pseudonym
Despite his frequent use of anonymous services and public access points, Mabus apparently wasn't all that careful about concealing his identity, which is how people could tell that he had had shown up to the convention. Several of the e-mails he sent included a name in the return address: Dennis Markuze. IP addresses led to Montreal, and checks of the Montreal phone directory revealed there were only a few numbers listed with that last name. With his targets getting increasingly worried about the threats they were receiving, people started filing complaints with various law enforcement agencies, including the Montreal Police.

And, as far as anyone could tell, the complaints went nowhere. The local authorities weren't interested in acting, and most of Mabus' targets didn't even live in Canada. That eventually changed, in part due to Mabus' lack of discretion when it came to choosing his targets. One of Zimmer's tweets apparently caught the attention of William Raillant-Clark, who handles press for the University of Montreal. Calling the inaction "unacceptable," Ralliant-Clark began investigating the story and placed his results on Tumblr; he also included the Montreal Police's press account on Twitter in some of the conversation.

Here's where Mabus' thoroughness backfired. Noticing the Twitter conversation between Ralliant-Clark and his former victims, he added the journalist to his target list. And, since the Montreal police's Twitter account was also mentioned, it got a copy too. Mabus actually started sending diatribes to the local police force.

At the same time, someone named Kyle VanderBeek also became a target of Mabus' attack. The organization he works for, change.org, has an online petition system. VanderBeek set one up that asked the Montreal police to end the harassment; the system sent an e-mail to the police with each signature. By this time last week, the Montreal police had launched an investigation and were asking for the e-mails to stop, while Ralliant-Clark was being interviewed on TV. Later that evening, the latest Mabus Twitter account started issuing apologies.

By Tuesday, the police announced that they had arrested a suspect in this case. The Canadian judicial system will now decide whether his frequent threats require some sort of formal intervention.

Unfortunately, it took years of abuse and threats before anything was done; in the meantime, a larger number of people have been targeted by his threats, wasted time blocking his screeds, or had their conversations disrupted by his rants. The only consolation is that the same personality trait that allowed him to be disruptive—his indifference to the targets of his harassment—finally led him to target the Montreal police.

original article here

Adults Responsible for Internet Abuse, Too

Almost all of our cyberpaths bully and torment their victims when they find out they have been busted & exposed. Victims who are already physically and emotional sick with PTSD and trauma. However, shaming the only justice they will recieve until laws change. Vigilantes? We think not. - EOPC
Cyberbullying isn't just a problem among adolescents. Adults engage in it, too. From online vigilantism and angry blogs to e-stalking and anonymous ranting on newspaper Web sites, grownups can be as abusive as the meanest schoolhouse tyrant.

The suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier in 2006 thrust adult cyberbullying into the open. The Dardenne Prairie, Mo., girl killed herself after receiving cruel messages on MySpace from impostors posing as a 16-year-old boy named "Josh Evans."

Lori Drew, the mother of one of Megan's friends, was accused of participating in the hoax along with her teenage daughter and a former teenage employee. Drew has denied sending messages to Megan.

While questions remain about Drew's role, the case has left no doubt that the Internet is rife with adult cyber passion.

After the suicide came to light, an outraged mother several states away ferreted out Drew's identity and posted it on a blog.

Soon, "an army of Internet avengers ... set out to destroy Lori Drew and her family," forcing them from their home and "vowing them no peace, ever," newspaper columnist Barbara Shelly wrote. "Who are these people who have made it their business to destroy her? They are a jury with laptops, their verdict rendered without insight into the dynamics of two families or the state of mind of a fragile 13-year-old girl or even a complete explanation of what actually occurred."

Internet shaming is a growing cultural phenomenon, but Daniel Solove, a professor of law at George Washington University and author of the 2007 book "The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet," said it can backfire.

"Internet shaming is done by people who want actually to enforce norms and to make people and society more orderly," he said.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE