This shouldn't be new nor should it be a surprise when online cyberbullying manifests itself in various forms for various reasons. Some of them may be due to hate. Others due to jealousy. Others due to wanting to maintaining certain powers or control and what have you.
You have your blog cyberbullies. You have your typical online cyberbullies. And now it's the Twitter and even Facebook cyberbullies. Sure, this is "old news" but there's a twist in all of this.
The whole thing reeks of hypocrisy on cyberbullying when you have certain, um, deaf/hh people with an increasingly unhealthy obsession towards a few particular deaf/hh individuals in the deaf/hh community. This is tantamount to stalking which begs that very "cyberbullying" question here.
The irony gets even more profound when one Twitter account under the name of "Safe Deaf Cyberspace" run the gamut of producing links that lead to a site that is obviously libelous (they know that its not true which makes it even worse yet they still left the link in); links from people who deride and mock other people which is nothing more than a stomping ground to encourage people to personally attack individuals which is a form of cyberbullying, by the way; use strong-arm bullying tactics against others who disagree or have other alternative opinions by encouraging people to boycott against DVTV and DeafRead, for example; or make note that "DVTV is a dysfunctional family" when the same thing could be said about the SDC Twitter account seeing how people respond thinking it's all about cyberbullying but really it's mostly a matter of differences of opinions.
That is an unhealthy obsession on what I'm seeing. I'm sure many others would agree. An example of this is easily seen when there are over 70 references to Tayler Mayer. The irony is palpable when you read through the responses in "Safe Deaf Cyberspace" Twitter page such as actually whining about another person's opinion of how other people whine. Can't get any more gold out of that one.
There is a time when people recognize cyberbullying for what it is and a time when it is not and recognize that it's simply a matter of differences of opinions, point of views and perspectives. Abusing the use of a Twitter account in the effort to "strong-arm" others into compliance is not only unhealthy but raises plenty of red flags that points to, ironically, the pervasiveness on using cyberbullying tactics as being "acceptable." Complaints become more subjective and not objective. You have people who condone the ridiculing, the mocking and the personal and sometimes petty nastiness against individuals.
That Twitter account isn't about cyberbullying because it is mirroring itself as one in more ways that one. Making valid objective complaints are one thing but to condone such questionable responses and elicit certain behaviors to continue its course are another thing. It has ironically become a cyberbullying tool of choice for others by targeting people they simply do not like by encouraging harassment.
Not cool.
In the example of DVTV/DR, it is impossible for that site to please everybody. Like Bill Cosby famously said, "I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." That's exactly what ASLRocks tried to do and as a result it fell short of its first anniversary but it was fertile ground for massive number of cyberbullying examples that went unimpeded and that people secretly or openly condoned the open cyberbullying atmosphere.
Here's the thing. You become more dysfunctional in the effort to please everybody and end up marginalizing yourself instead.
What kind of a life is that?
If you want a true Twitter page on cyberbullying without all of the innuendos and nastiness but from a more "professional" approach then go here.
18 comments:
The site is disturbing. The individual(s) connected to the site is/are disturbed.
The true cyberbullying twitter page had this link pointing to a court case ruling that threatening posts (comments) involving hate crime (court recognized hate crimes) and defamation isn't protected free speech.
Would certain tweets in Safe Deaf Cyberspace be considered defamation?
This link is worth looking at:
Court: Cyberbullying Threats Are Not Protected Speech http://bit.ly/awIlBn)) 10:38 AM Mar 20th, 2010 via TweetDeck
The link you provided for the "professional" cyberbullying Twitter account has wealth of information. One case showed a girl was able to sue her classmates and Facebook for being cyberbullying in a private forum on FB.
Thank you for pointing to the REAL cyberbullying Twitter account.
Candy,
What I know so far is that the Twitter account isn't Patti's but to someone else.
http://handeyes.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/for-the-record-stopdeafread-fb-not-mine/#comment-1758
Though, I've not heard of any disapproval or concerns about this Twitter. Not surprised though.
It's oldish news really, I got a fair amount and I'm not on Twitter, people who know me sent me e-mails copying it, all sorts of personal attack and innuendo, but I'm happy enough ! Most know 99.9% of twitter is the home of idiots anyway,in that respect to avoid them all simply ignore it, sorted.... There are no links to any twitter site on my blog or FB I don't allow them. The sad aspect they think if these clowns 'hide' their tweets then no-one knows they are attacking other people, they thought that about facebook too and a few here in the UK have ended up in court, it's public domain so libel and harassment.
Yes, MM. There are some clowns who hide their tweets and just let word of mouth get the word around. But they also hide because they KNOW its their tool so they can cyberbully other people the DO NOT LIKE in an anonymous fashion. You know, like some people like to say this often, "not cool." Not a peep from them which makes it rather an interesting observation.
Hmmm....
The entries on the twitter account are like pieces of a puzzle. The account is like the end result when you put the puzzle pieces together. It paints a very honest picture of DVTV.
We all know for sure DVTV ain't the holy land. But, theres newcomers to that website and they need to be educated of the website's history. They, the newcomers, need to know they're feeding a monster thats divided the deaf community several times in the past few years.
Even though it shows strong criticisms toward a particular website, I strongly disagree that the purpose of the aforementioned twitter account is a form of cyberbullying.
It's a form of education, a form of exposing the truth.
JPR, I think it's a grey area here in some cases. For example, in Deaf Echo, Chris Hueur stepped into that grey area against me about my job, which was incorrectly described, on exactly what I do for a living.
"Otherwise we can make a little bet. What do you do for a living, Mike? I don't know but from random things I've seen you say over the years it looks like some sort of geology/civil engineering-related job."
http://deafecho.com/2011/02/madison-wisconsin-so-this-is-democracy-an-attack-on-education/#comment-153982080.
But when Chris wrote that piece about me I or others could consider or perceive that as a "call to action" to other people to find more things about me and what I do, and use that against me somehow and raise the specter about my position. But that's the grey area I'm talking about. Nothing was specific on the reason why it was brought up or the true agenda behind it. I wrote it off as someone having an emotional moment targeting me because I had an opinion that wasn't well received and nothing more. What Chris said made my nose wrinkle a bit.
Oh, well as I say.
Nesmuth,
First, tell me what you think about Carl's video about his claim that DVTV purposely allow other people to steal other people's vlog. And that Tayler condones such actions. True?
As for "It paints a very honest picture of DVTV" I'd have to disagree with you with that intonation of yours considering the fact that people left DVTV because of Tayler's refusal to put the a-wordism in the R-list. The resulting action merely caused many people to leave DVTV and created a vendetta-like response (mob mentality if you ask me) on going after Tayler specifically as a person rather than focus on the disagreement over the R-list. This anger is manifested in various forms by making the situation at DVTV appear larger than not. For me it looks to be all hype over there. That's (one of) the aim of that Twitter deaf cyberbully account is trying to do rather than the purpose to "educate" people about them. Pretty hard to claim that it's about educating people when that Twitter account is basically hidden and virtually unknown. And then you have that FB and others, too. It's mostly an internal deal here within the knowledge of only a few people, comparatively so.
I'd still say that Twitter account is a form of cyberbullying in its own right simply because of their effort to encourage people to target *AND* harass a particular individual by making it personal. It's not really about puzzles or facts but about raw emotions at play because it all goes back to their arguments over the R-list (e.g. the a-wordism) with Tayler as owner of DVTV as the main reason for their uprising. Consider the source of their action first and it can easily snowball believing in their own hype. Who would believe that DVTV requires people to pay $39.99 as a membership service fee? That claim was promoted in that deaf cyberbully Twitter account. That's libel. It's untrue. And by allowing that it fits the description as a cyberbullying attempt condoned by that Twitter account. So, no, it doesn't "paint a picture" here as you are claiming Nesmuth.
Tayler sticks to his principles in the effort to help ensure that people have a place to present their videos/blogs within the guidelines of DVTV/DR. Tayler continues to make improvements on DR by, for example, allowing reader to "de-select" from the aggregator list of bloggers so they won't be tempted to read them if certain bloggers they don't like. Things like that. Consider the improvements he has done over the past.
I see Tayler on making that fine balance for everybody, regardless of their hearing loss status or cultural affiliation. People are upset because they cannot make DVTV/DR as their own "Deaf-only" website. And that grates them to no end. There is no way to please everybody. If Tayler tries to do that then his DR/DVTV would last just as long as ASLrocks did.
Mike..
How do you know the twitter isn't Patti's? She made it clear the Facbeook - Stop DVTV isn't hers. She never said anything about twitter and her webpage is listed. She made an effort to come out and say that the FB isn't hers but she never did for Twitter. You're right, at this point the twitter account belonging to her is speculation. Still, I think if it wasn't hers, she'd come out and say it.
Also, to add, the initial protest was about the R-list in DVTV and Tayler's refusal to include the a-wordism in it (and made a good point, too). And this was their main argument and over the course of one year or so this action has conveniently morphed into a "cyberbullying" problem on DVTV.
I still say the perception is all hype and emotionally laden.
I did a poll not too far back asking this question on the cyberbullying perception problem in ASLrocks and DVTV.
http://kokonutpundits.blogspot.com/2010/11/poll-cyberbullying-problem-on-aslrocks.html
99 responses on ASLrocks:
Over 70% of them said it was a serious problem.
96 responses on DVTV:
Some 21% of them said it was a serious problem.
Not a scientific poll, mind you but it does present an interesting perspective here.
Yet, as I re-iterated earlier, the targeted argument was over Tayler's refusal to include the a-wordism in the R-list and how it somehow, magically so, turned into a very serious cyberbullying problem in DVTV. I smell an emotional and control issue agenda here rather than something based purely on facts.
I think Tayler has done well considering all the personal backstabbing he has endured despite the claims of "I like him but... (*stabs him in the back several times*)...what he is doing is wrong for the Deaf community."
Peace? Love? Unity Nah. It's a control issue they cannot deal with and people are willing to pull out all the stops to stop him, even if it means trying to damage his reputation falsely.
People can only get bullied if they allow themselves to be bullied. Personally I treat these idiots with the contempt they deserve and follow the golden rule do NOT reply or get involved with them as this gives them an in. I used to fight back but this encouraged them, so I cock a deaf 'en at them... until such time as the law can be applied to the net,then we can get them taken offline and given the psychiatric counselling many appear to be short of.
MM,
Right. If only you allow them to bully you. And the best course of action is simply to ignore them. Or block them whenever possible. I've done that in YouTube, my email, my Twitter account and so on. And you do have a choice on not to read or watch a vlog of those who are trying to bait you, too. And if you do read/watch them, it's either you shrug them off as emotionally laden bunch of people or you take it far too personally and seriously. You do have a choice. I agree. It's not like you don't have any in the world of cyberspace. There are steps a person can do. But that's a bit different when a person is a targeted individual by a group of people with a mob mentality based on hyperbole, disinformation, plain lies and half-truths because of their over the top emotional investment they have it in for themselves. It sure ain't unity they've been trying to preach all these years. It boils down to a control issue rather than to allow opinions to flow freely.
Candy,
She did say it wasn't hers recently in her blog comment this morning.
http://handeyes.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/kettle-black-hear-that-whistle-roar-nah-we-deaf/#comment-3400
Although nothing was said whether responses (or the account itself) in that Twitter account was "cool" or "not cool."
:/
She also does not seem to be concerned that her webpage is listed on that site indicating possible owner of the account. Doesn't look good, IMO. Everyone has different take on that, so I'll just leave it at that.
Mike,
You have your own eyes and I have my own eyes. And the respect for what our eyes sees is mutual.
I have nothing against you and your blogging style but I see you're simply a blogger sitting on the cliff of the DVTV platform praying you don't get knocked down at the next bull run.
Nesmuth,
I asked you a question about Carl's video claim. Can you answer it, please?
As for your comment about "DVTV platform" and "bull run," not sure what you're getting at.
Mike,
It's the greatest irony in YouTube that a handful of deafies whine big time over their vlogs being shared about even in places they're not allowed. If he wants to say it's stealing, I say it's sharing.
Also take a peek at this Vlog that highlights the same irony. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVVByClmnjk
And as for sitting on the cliff of the DVTV platform praying you don't get knocked off in the next bull run. Your position is similar to someone sitting on a cliff and I've seen people quit DVTV by the masses as if they're running off the cliff like a herd of bulls and could get people like you knocked off. I've seen innocent bloggers end up being scapegoats for past bull runs and get knocked off DVTV , deaf read, whatever...
It could happen to you.
Nesmuth,
It cannot be "sharing" because it would imply that permission was given to use the other person's video.
As for stealing, either he doesn't have all the facts or he does. If he did he have the facts in hand he would publicly acknowledged the information given to him from Tayler explaining what happened. If Tayler did in fact explain it to him and he doesn't clarify to the readers/watchers then I'd say he'd being purposely dishonest. I believe Carl had already gotten the information by now since Tayler is pretty good about responding to such seriousness. I'm thinking that Carl won't divulge information given to him for fear of losing face.
I'm "sitting on the DVTV platform"? How is that so? I've been scapegoated a few times by whiners so it's nothing new for me to worry about. They complain and whine at every opportunity they get. So, I wouldn't be surprised by their actions or responses. Should I be THAT worried? LOL. In word, no.
With me speaking in my vlogs, I'm sure the shock has finally wore off, I wasn't even worried then when I first started doing that. Just as I wasn't worried about my opinions and facts in my own blogs. Yet some continue complain and moan like a bitch in heat.
Nesmuth, you needn't to worry about me and their tendency to hurl themselves on the floor and throw a temper tantrum fit. All I can do is shake my head and watch the whole spectacle in front of me.
If I leave it wouldn't because I was forced to leave but rather for other reasons like moving on to something else better that have captured my attention or leave because of boredom or whatever. I'm an old pro at this but thanks for your amusing comment.
Post a Comment