The Ignore List

[josephga]

I deleted my facebook account last year. Someone I went to grammar school with in the first grade contacted me. I felt strange about the whole thing people I haven't seen since second grade finding me.

[bigvalboy]

I deleted my facebook account last year. Someone I went to grammar school with in the first grade contacted me. I felt strange about the whole thing people I haven't seen since second grade finding me.

 

Exactly Joseph....I don't understand the desire people have to want the whole world looking at their life. Not judging those that enjoy Twitter, facebook and post everything they do on youtube. Certainly I know many people that are almost addicted to social media, it just isn't for me.

[Guest countryboywny]

I don't use the ignore feature. Sure, there are posters that I don't agree with or irritate me in some way, but sometimes they say something that I didn't know. I take the bitter with the batter, I never attack someone who has posted something that I disagree with or find in poor taste.. I just move on.

[+ Charlie]

Why should I use a program to ignore posters for me when it is so easy for me to do it myself?

[JoeBlow]

I've never used the ignore feature, but have considered using it on those who post incessantly and feel they must reply to every single thread ad nauseam.

[+ Travis69]

The funny thing is the person you insult or piss off today might be the person tomorrow who has information on an escort you have asked about. Do you think they will then take the time or effort to help you???? Just a thought.

[josephga]

The funny thing is the person you insult or piss off today might be the person tomorrow who has information on an escort you have asked about. Do you think they will then take the time or effort to help you???? Just a thought.

 

lol here in the south we call that, the ass you kick today might be the ass you kiss tomorrow..,

[+ Travis69]

lol here in the south we call that, the ass you kick today might be the ass you kiss tomorrow..,

 

I like that and it's so true.

[down_to_business]

I have about 3-4 on my ignore list. I don't think its a big deal one way or the other. All I use it for is a self-reminder not to reply to their posts. I do see these people's posts when I come to the forum because ignore only works when you sign in.

[Lankypeters]

Very sad but I have to say if you're willing to participate in FB, Myspace, twitter and all that other social media crap then you deserve what comes your way.

 

I don't think you ever deserve rude behavior in any format or situation. Regard, respect and good manners can be consistent no matter where you are.

[Guest]

The only person I've ever put on my ignore list is Boner. I don't know if he still posts.

[operalover21]

Very sad but I have to say if you're willing to participate in FB, Myspace, twitter and all that other social media crap then you deserve what comes your way.

 

I don't think you ever deserve rude behavior in any format or situation. Regard, respect and good manners can be consistent no matter where you are.

 

I wasn't referring specifically to rude behavior but I do think if you're willing to share every aspect of your life on the internet with complete strangers then you have no right to complain when you get shit in return. I'm just saying. Live by the sword, die by the sword sort of thing.

[operalover21]

Very sad but I have to say if you're willing to participate in FB, Myspace, twitter and all that other social media crap then you deserve what comes your way.

 

I don't think you ever deserve rude behavior in any format or situation. Regard, respect and good manners can be consistent no matter where you are.

 

And, I might add, I don't think people with "respect or good manners" participate in social media. It's a bit of an oxymoron. They are mostly self-absorbed narcissists.

[seeker630]

 

And, I might add, I don't think people with "respect or good manners" participate in social media. It's a bit of an oxymoron. They are mostly self-absorbed narcissists.

 

And yet, you post here.

 

Social media: forms of electronic communication (as Web sites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (as videos) (Merriam-Webster)

[josephga]

I use too have a youtube channel because I collect movies. I liked making the video's & sharing that with the others who shared the same hobby, It's been a few years but at one time I could solve the rubiks cube in 5 minutes or less I made a video posted it on youtube and shared that with those who where into puzzle solving or shared that interest. But these people like chris crocker that talk about every shit they take do welcome in the controversy

[bigvalboy]

And yet, you post here.

 

Social media: forms of electronic communication (as Web sites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (as videos) (Merriam-Webster)

 

Since it is the end of the year, I do have an observation. I would say that seeker shows tremendous "respect" and "good manners" and tries to be very diplomatic on this forum. As does Joseph. We don't always agree, but I always find myself agreeing with their approach....best to you guys in the New Year!!

[Steven_Draker]

I don't think people with "respect or good manners" participate in social media.

 

Some do, but those who decide not to play by the rules might be "unmasked" soon.

 

 

 

Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures

 

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/60839000/jpg/_60839864_50779378.jpg

 

Sites such as Facebook have been used to abuse people under the mask of anonymity

 

 

Websites will soon be forced to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online.

 

New government proposals say victims have a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles.

 

The powers will be balanced by measures to prevent false claims in order to get material removed.

 

But privacy advocates are worried websites might end up divulging user details in a wider range of cases.

 

Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her.

 

Nicola Brookes had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook.

 

Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them.

 

The new powers, to be added to the Defamation Bill, would make this process far less time-consuming and costly, the government said.

 

Complying with requests would afford the website greater protection from being sued in the event of a defamation claim.

 

The new rules would apply to all websites - regardless of where they are hosted - but the claimant would need to be able to show that the UK was the right place to bring the action.

 

End to 'scurrilous rumour'

Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence.

 

This means many websites remove articles as soon as a defamation claim is made - either rightly or wrongly.

 

"Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users," said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

 

"But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material.

 

 

Nicola Brookes said the abuse started after she posted a message about an X Factor star

"Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material when requested to do so by a complainant."

 

Mr Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment.

 

"The government wants a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations effectively but also ensures that information online can't be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators.

 

"It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."

 

Privacy concerns

But Privacy International, an organisation that campaigns at an international level on privacy issues, says that there is a concern that "gun-shy website operators will start automatically divulging user details the moment someone alleges defamation in order to shield themselves from libel actions".

 

"A great deal of the content posted by internet trolls is not actually defamatory, instead constituting harassment, invasion of privacy or simply unpleasant but lawfully-expressed opinion," said Emma Draper, head of communications at Privacy International.

 

"However, if the choice is between protecting users' anonymity and avoiding a potentially costly lawsuit, many small operators are not going to be overly concerned about whether or not a user has genuinely defamed the complainant."

 

More to this story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18404621

[operalover21]

And yet, you post here.

 

Social media: forms of electronic communication (as Web sites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (as videos) (Merriam-Webster)

 

This isn't "social media" by my definition. I'm not sharing my every thought and every personal observation through a minute-by-minute examination of my day which is what twitter and FB users do. This is a whole different animal. Perhaps one that's not far off ... but it is different just the same.

 

No one comes on here to tweet when you just went to the bathroom or had one's period or about one's latest zit. That's social media to me.

[operalover21]

Some do, but those who decide not to play by the rules might be "unmasked" soon.[/color]

 

 

 

Websites to be forced to identify trolls under new measures

 

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/60839000/jpg/_60839864_50779378.jpg

 

Sites such as Facebook have been used to abuse people under the mask of anonymity

 

 

Websites will soon be forced to identify people who have posted defamatory messages online.

 

New government proposals say victims have a right to know who is behind malicious messages without the need for costly legal battles.

 

The powers will be balanced by measures to prevent false claims in order to get material removed.

 

But privacy advocates are worried websites might end up divulging user details in a wider range of cases.

 

Last week, a British woman won a court order forcing Facebook to identify users who had harassed her.

 

Nicola Brookes had been falsely branded a paedophile and drug dealer by users - known as trolls - on Facebook.

 

Facebook, which did not contest the order, will now reveal the IP addresses of people who had abused her so she can prosecute them.

 

The new powers, to be added to the Defamation Bill, would make this process far less time-consuming and costly, the government said.

 

Complying with requests would afford the website greater protection from being sued in the event of a defamation claim.

 

The new rules would apply to all websites - regardless of where they are hosted - but the claimant would need to be able to show that the UK was the right place to bring the action.

 

End to 'scurrilous rumour'

Currently, in legal terms, every website "hit" - visit - on a defamatory article can be counted as a separate offence.

 

This means many websites remove articles as soon as a defamation claim is made - either rightly or wrongly.

 

"Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users," said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

 

"But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material.

 

 

Nicola Brookes said the abuse started after she posted a message about an X Factor star

"Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material when requested to do so by a complainant."

 

Mr Clarke said the measures would mean an end to "scurrilous rumour and allegation" being posted online without fear of adequate punishment.

 

"The government wants a libel regime for the internet that makes it possible for people to protect their reputations effectively but also ensures that information online can't be easily censored by casual threats of litigation against website operators.

 

"It will be very important to ensure that these measures do not inadvertently expose genuine whistleblowers, and we are committed to getting the detail right to minimise this risk."

 

Privacy concerns

But Privacy International, an organisation that campaigns at an international level on privacy issues, says that there is a concern that "gun-shy website operators will start automatically divulging user details the moment someone alleges defamation in order to shield themselves from libel actions".

 

"A great deal of the content posted by internet trolls is not actually defamatory, instead constituting harassment, invasion of privacy or simply unpleasant but lawfully-expressed opinion," said Emma Draper, head of communications at Privacy International.

 

"However, if the choice is between protecting users' anonymity and avoiding a potentially costly lawsuit, many small operators are not going to be overly concerned about whether or not a user has genuinely defamed the complainant."

 

More to this story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18404621

 

Oh, great, another reason to hate the government. I guess once the Obama administration is through trying to take away our Internet freedoms (i.e, Megaupload, etc.) they'll go after the next thing. Anything to please the Hollywood corporate masters.

[+ deej]

Oh, great, another reason to hate the government. I guess once the Obama administration is through trying to take away our Internet freedoms (i.e, Megaupload, etc.) they'll go after the next thing. Anything to please the Hollywood corporate masters.

 

Happy Holidays, Scrooge.

[KMEM]

I have one person on the ignore list but a funny thing happens, everytime I log on all my posts disappear.

 

Merry Christmas everyone.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[Lookin]

I have one person on the ignore list but a funny thing happens, everytime I log on all my posts disappear.

 

KMEM

 

KMEM hasn't had much to say lately. Probably busy with the Holidays.

 

Perhaps in the New Year (which I hope is very happy for all!), Daddy could make 'ignore' the default, and we could turn everybody back on, one by one.

 

So to speak.

 

http://img.ihere.org/uploads/8aafc136b6.jpg

[tyro]

Is that Dolph Lambert on the left? From Bel Ami? What a cutie patootie he is. Om nom nom. Mr. Right isn't too shabby either! Thanks Lookin.

T

[seeker630]

Is that Dolph Lambert on the left? From Bel Ami? What a cutie patootie he is. Om nom nom. Mr. Right isn't too shabby either! Thanks Lookin.

T

 

The guy on the right is Dawson from Corbin FIsher. https://www.corbinfisher.com/ACMPreview.aspx?id=735&site=ACM

[tyro]

Thank you for the info and link. Yummalicious, those two!

T