Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Cyber bullying

by In Wales Thu Aug 15th, 2013 at 12:03:38 PM EST

Cyberbullying: Cameron Writes To Victim's Dad

David Cameron has written a letter to the father of a teenage girl who killed herself after she was bulled on the controversial website Ask.fm.

Mr Cameron sent the personal letter to David Smith after his 14-year-old daughter Hannah was found dead two weeks ago at her home in Lutterworth.

The Prime Minister insisted legislation exists to deal with online trolls, the Daily Mirror reported.

Mr Cameron said he was grateful "as a parent" to David Smith for highlighting the problem of bullying on social sites.

Who is responsible, Government or the online communities themselves?


Cameron has been criticised for the Government not doing enough to tackle cyber bullying. He defends against that by stating that there is legislation in this area already.  

But the crucial question in my mind is what about those people that are part of websites, forums and online communities? What should their role be in stamping out and challenging those who are abusive online?

We are all familiar with trolls and shit stirrers, ET has seen them come and go and with the rare exception of occasional flare ups, they tend to be dealt with fairly before any crisis point occurs. I'm not referring to 'robust' and challenging debate but to outright personal attacks and bullying behaviour. If any individual was overtly abusive, I have faith in the community here to challenge that, regardless of the stance of Editors.

Yet we live in times where everyone seems to be fair game for abuse, and when one starts, others enjoy piling in on top. Magazines and tabloids target and tear apart celebs and wannabes for their failings, citing that they are only providing for public demand.  People do exactly the same thing to each other 'in real life'.

People engage in public bitching and rumour mongering on each other's facebook pages, attack complete strangers on forums.  How do people reach the point where they feel it is ok to attack and for others to let them?

Where does responsibility ultimately lie?

Display:
Where does responsibility ultimately lie?

I'm wondering whether that's the right question, and if not, what's the right question.

IMHO there are usually multiple levels of responsibility, and insistence on identifying "ultimate" responsibility often serves to get outhers out of responsibility (think Bush admin lack of preparation for terror attacks and supporters' argument that the terrorists are ultimately responsible, for example).

In this case, what complicates matters is that the ones most responsible, the abusive trolls, can hide behind anonymity and forever escape their responsibility. Thus identifying the one bearing the most responsibility won't lead to any measure to combat the phenmenon, which, as you point out, stems from an all too widespread human behaviour.

Cyberbullying can be battled most effectively by moderators employed by webmasters who warn or ban the bullies. But most major 'social media' sites aren't willing to monitor content (Facebook, YouTube etc.), and that isn't merely rooted in commercial considerations but also a semi-libertarian ideology (even if at the same time they cooperate with NSA and exploit private data on their own for commercial purposes).

What governments could do (short of Orwellian/NSA measures to demand ways of registration that reveal identity and then government access to registration data) is make laws requiring providers to employ moderators. This of course has the big problem that national laws don't apply to foreign sites.

A further addition from me is that in addition to private bullying, there is organised political bullying that can hit not just protected politicians who have to and knowingly take such risks but nonpublic persons too: when some extremist groups post private data of their detractors or hated persons and maintain public blacklists, or maintain propaganda sites defaming common people.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Thu Aug 15th, 2013 at 12:23:33 PM EST
I agree that there is no ultimate, absolute, buck stops here answer to the question. The same nasty behaviour of people towards others occurs in every environment, not just online and they all have their day of increased awareness/outrage before sinking into the background noise again.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 15th, 2013 at 01:13:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Cyberbullying can be battled most effectively by moderators employed by webmasters who warn or ban the bullies.

Pardon me while I laugh

apart from that, what TBG said

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 05:24:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Have we noticed that ask.fm seem to think that most of the abuse came from the girl herself? Was that debunked or something?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 15th, 2013 at 12:26:33 PM EST
Daily Mail link. In a rush ...
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 15th, 2013 at 12:27:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hannah Smith: Suicide teen trolled herself, say Latvian website chiefs at Ask.fm | Mail Online

Mr Smith, a lorry driver from  Lutterworth, Leicestershire, added that the issue was not if Hannah had sent any of the messages.

`She was bullied online,' he said. `Whether she wrote some of it herself doesn't make any difference.

`A 14-year-old girl has taken her own life because she was being bullied on the internet.

`If Hannah did do some of it herself, then it just shows how desperate she was.'

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 15th, 2013 at 01:03:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it still raises the issue that such an environment and culture allows any abuse to reach the level that Hannah apparently experienced (regardless of her self harm through this means).
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 15th, 2013 at 01:06:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What level of abuse from other people did she endure?

There are a whole pile of issues here, all cultural and at various different levels. How we deal with mental health. A cultural norm for how we behave  online. A belief that online isn't real. How we treat and think of young adults and, for that matter children. A culture in which bullying is endemic - and culturally encouraged, often by the same media so busy complaining about it, in the same way that they pontificate about porn beside their gratuitous pictures of naked women.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 15th, 2013 at 01:40:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hannah Smith: Suicide teen trolled herself, say Latvian website chiefs at Ask.fm | Mail Online
A 16-year-old boy from Belgium has been identified as the troll who sent taunts to Hannah the day before she died. Mr Smith told the Daily Mail he had seen evidence the teenager, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was targeting his daughter.

Maybe she fuelled her own abuse, but the points you raise about bullying cultures being promoted in many respects are essentially the issues I am interested in, outside of just this one case.

I am not very sure I would have survived being a teenager in this era.  I thought I was bullied fairly badly as it was but if my bullies had the kind of technological power that children do now I don't know how I would have escaped that.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 15th, 2013 at 03:24:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't understand bullying very well: I don't understand the joy people get from bullying or why people put up with it. On the other hand I'm old and male, so bullying generally turned physical pretty quickly and it turned out that even though I was a wimpy, geeky kid I wasn't very good at being bullied - either you hit me enough that I didn't get up and stopped trying to hit you back [1] or I'd accidentally give  you a black eye (happened once). These days I'd probably have been jailed for having been involved in a fight at all.

I'm guessing this isn't an uncommon experience for the people in power pretty much everywhere, who are mostly male, my age or older and went to schools were you probably wouldn't get beaten to death. Or were themselves the bullies.

----
[1] It occurred to me when I was about 15 that if you're going to take this attitude you should probably develop a way to make it a bit more survivable. I took up karate, and then physical bullying became an even worse idea.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 15th, 2013 at 04:18:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Physical bullying is obvious, even if the cause isn't.  What about psychological bullying? It is harder to challenge subtle forms of bullying that build up, starting with little put downs, cold shoulder and behaviours designed to undermine and damage esteem and confidence.  They aren't very easy to point at and they work to make the victim blame themselves and carry the shame.

Bullies bully because they like the feeling of power they get from manipulating another person, or feed off the drama or whatever.  Teens of family friends and friends of my step children give me an unbearable insight into the dynamics of friendship groups and just how unbelievable nasty and cruel children can be to each other. Such behaviour is normalised and if you want to fit in, go along with it or be a social outcast.

Turning abuse back on the abuser when you can't get a sense of perspective on what has actually happened is very hard.

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 15th, 2013 at 05:12:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Colman:
the people in power pretty much everywhere... were themselves the bullies.

I think that's likely in the majority of cases.

To take the British example, the kind of schools many of the people in power went to are (were?) outright bully factories.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 01:53:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A teen killed herself therefore, Internets.

It's bullshit.

It's also political SOP: pick an issue, find a vulnerable teen (preferably female and blonde if possible), pretend you're a campaigning crusader acting on behalf of the weak and downtrodden, pile up the instavotes.

Meanwhile ignore the fact that the political and economic systems of most countries are built on abuse and bullying, and that abuse is steadily getting more aggressive, more demeaning, and more violent.

And that entire media organisations exist with a firm interest in stoking the abuse with endless tales of benefit cheats, single mothers on benefits, immigrants on benefits, workshy disabled cancer victims on benefits, and so on.

(That last one is a bit of a harder sell. Or was until recently, anyway.)

Now - this is not to say online abuse doesn't happen, or that the Internet is always a nice place with nice people.

But the reality is vulnerable teens suicide regularly. It's horrible, and it could probably be avoided with more care, but it's not unusual.

Unless someone has some research proving that there's been a huge jump in suicide numbers because of the Internet, all that's changed is the medium, not the message.

Not so for the economic and political abuse the government has been handing out. That has been clearly linked with suicide, homelessness, crime, and all manner of other evils.

Why does being in Westminster make the perpetrators immune?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 10:26:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Unless someone has some research proving that there's been a huge jump in suicide numbers because of the Internet, all that's changed is the medium, not the message.

No, what's changed is that you can prove what happened, not ignore it. Which should be good news, noy bad.

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 01:15:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am not very sure I would have survived being a teenager in this era.

On the other hand, as socially isolated as I was as a teenager, I'm sure I would have found online communities that felt like home. The reality was that the relatively tiny peer group I had at school was all I had to work from.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Thu Aug 15th, 2013 at 09:07:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Also.

I've seen a disturbing amount of anecdotal confirmation of that sort of behaviour.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 15th, 2013 at 12:29:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's a really interesting article.
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Aug 15th, 2013 at 12:59:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Aug 17th, 2013 at 08:11:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Physical bullying used to be quite severe in the days my older brothers went to secondary school. It had started to decline by the time I reached that age. I was always c. 1-2 years below average age for my class and of slight build, so that didn't help. Neither did my sarcastic "wit". What helped was that I could run fast and was quite good at sport, as that was a source of status within the school. Being too smart academically wasn't a great idea at all as you might show other people up or expose them to critical comparisons by the teachers. The socially smart kids always had a gang for protection whilst the loners (like me) who didn't build alliances were exposed.

The school went co-ed and the culture gradually changed. The girls presence discouraged physical bullying but may have introduced more subtle psychological forms of competition, conformance enforcing, and bullying.  But overall the whole societal culture changed and bullying wasn't tolerated by parents, teachers and high status kids or leaders anymore. Whereas in my time "telling on someone" was the lowest form of behaviour which could invite severe retribution for the "informer", schools now officially encouraged a "telling" culture. You were now no longer expected to"be a man and stick up for yourself" and expected to do the decent/responsible thing and report bulling wherever it occurred. The "discovery" of child sexual abuse reinforced the trend.  However the skill levels amongst adults/teachers in dealing with such situations varied greatly.

So how is cyberbullying different from the direct physical or psychological kind?  I haven't studied either phenomenon in any depth, but one difference, it seems to me, is the road rage effect that effects people when they think they have some anonymity behind the wheel of a car or behind a pseudonym. They say and do things they might ordinarily feel like doing but would never do openly because of the opprobrium it attracts.  In the example given in the story, the victim appears to have done some of the trolling against herself. That reads like someone who was looking for attention and sympathy - "look what people are doing to me". Low self esteem, lack of parental affection/attention, and all sorts of neurotic anxiety disorders could have been contributing factors. Also Websites shouldn't be allowed to default to anonymity as was the case in the the case highlighted in the story.

But I am unconvinced that cyber-bulling now is any worse that bullying was in the past. The anonymity/publicity factor may make allow it to take quite vicious forms, but in theory it should also be easier to dismiss the rantings of someone who doesn't even know you. What has always struck me however is that some personalty types are very prone to abuse/bullying whatever the context and almost seem to seek out situations where it can occur again - a bit like people who escape one abusive relationship only to enter into another.

There are deep psychological issues here which can only be dealt with one an individual case by case basis and can take years to resolve. Legislation/enforcement to discourage abusive/bullying behaviour is part of the answer, but probably far more important is the development of group norms. There is also a maturing process as people get used to new media. I seem to recall quite a lot of trolling and abusive behaviour on ET which wasn't always handled well, and now I haven't seen any of it in ages. I'm not involved in moderation or open threads, so perhaps I'm missing it. But I can't imagine "the community"  tolerating it for any length of time.

So I'm a big fan of self-moderating groups because they can also become self-maturing groups. I avoid moderated blogs because of the time delays involved and the resources required to moderate all content on something like twitter seems unrealistic. The reporting of abuse mechanisms, the banning/shaming of offenders, and the general reaction of the online community seems to work quite well in all but rare, exceptional cases. That is not to say abuse doesn't happen, but does it happen all that much more often than in "real life" specially amongst vulnerable teenagers?

In the case in question it is convenient for society and the parents to blame everything on the remote cyberbully, and that is understandable in their time of grief. However we also need to train parents to recognise the signs and vulnerabilities and needs of their own children. Parenting has, to me, always seemed like one of the most difficult and skilled jobs one can ever undertake, and it is remarkable that most of us have never received any significant amount of formal training for it. But that is another story...

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Thu Aug 15th, 2013 at 07:30:24 PM EST
The reporting of abuse mechanisms, the banning/shaming of offenders, and the general reaction of the online community seems to work quite well in all but rare, exceptional cases. That is not to say abuse doesn't happen, but does it happen all that much more often than in "real life" specially amongst vulnerable teenagers?

I'm not a big fan of social media (other than blogs with meaty content) and my experience of what goes on at large sites is largely limited to YouTube comments, but I would say that the level of bullying there is definitely high and barely checked, and that in particular when it comes to teenagers. I have seen instant ridicule, sexual and mysogynic insults, racist insults, ganging-up, you name it – if a video goes viral, you'll get it by the minute.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 02:48:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
OK this is not my world, but my kids who are twitter/Facebook fanatics don't seem to experience abuse either - although I doubt they would tolerate it for an instant. They don't take any crap from me anyway....

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 06:33:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it depends on the friendship group, maybe whether a bullying culture is allowed to exist within the school.  I've seen horrible stuff on the facebook pages of primary school kids (who aren't old enough to have accounts).  They have public arguments, spread rumours, slag each other off...
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Sat Aug 17th, 2013 at 03:15:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When it comes to kids peer group in their neighbourhood or school, ending the account is not so much of an option as the school yard will still be there. But the fact that you have seen it points out another aspect of bullying taking place over the internet: it becomes tracable, provable and visible. Which are all advantages should adults around said kids have the will and skills to do something about it.

Me, I think bullying is one way of describing actions to establish and maintain position within an hierarchial environment. We use different words depending on if the hierarchy is seen generally as legitimate (bosses over employees, police over civilians, ministers and powerful legislators over the hoi polloi, or for that matter teachers over students) or illegitimate, and also depending on the people involved (bullying or harassment depends a lot on age).

But I think it is basically the same function, and school kids are stuck in their hierarchial environment to an extent otherwise reserved for convicts (and gruesome crimes at that, nine-ten years of primary school plus another three in secondary school). So really efficient actions would probably need to include giving school children freedom from the hierarchial environment they are stuck in and mimic. Which quickly leads to utopian visions, because how on earth to go about that while the rest of society is stuck in making ever steeper hierarchies?

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Aug 17th, 2013 at 05:27:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When it is perpetrated by people who are in the peer group in the physical vicinity of the victim, then it's never just, or most likely even primarily, online abuse.

And we do know how to maintain a bullying-free school (or near enough as can likely be achieved within the confines of what amounts to a child prison). It's a matter of consistent enforcement. With kids, a stern word will get you incredibly far. But only if you apply it consistently. Children are, from a very early age, quite good at distinguishing between rules which are systematically enforced (and where every sternly worded talking to thus carries the implicit promise of escalation if you persist in the behavior), and rules which are capriciously enforced.

This, however, requires that teachers never stop being teachers (at least) so long as they are on school grounds. Your break really does not start until you reach the break room: If you observe unacceptable behavior on the way, you need to intervene there and then and stick around until the unacceptable behavior stops. And if you don't have time for that, then take everyone involved with you to the office and let the officials sort it out. Because you have important things to do, and by breaking the rules they just forfeited their break so you don't have to forfeit yours.

Most importantly, it requires that every school employee is aligned on the anti-bullying strategy and actively participates in it. And that the management backs employees who act within that policy to the hilt when some irate member of the Hyacinth Bucket demographic demands to know why their precious little shithead didn't make it to lunch break football for the fourth day in a row.

In short, I'm not convinced that bullying is an incurable part of what is wrong with our schools. We have very nearly eliminated fistfights in the schoolyard, something that would have been considered impossible a generation ago ("boys will be boys" and all that). Of course, that did require giving the victims an external escalation point - the police - so the victims could go over the head of incompetent local management to an entity that will make an Issue out of assault and battery every single time it is escalated to them. (Yes, I've seen cases where that was necessary, no the local school management was not happy that we went over their head, no we didn't give a single fuck about their hurt pride, and yes I still think that zero is the right and correct number of thoughts to spare for the desire of incompetent local management to avoid losing face.)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Aug 18th, 2013 at 08:06:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have a theory that most young kids (and perhaps especially girls) brought up in our currently configured "mainstream" society actually like an environment with clear boundaries - where authority is clearly defined, rules are there for all to see, and most importantly, the rules are consistently applied to all. Much adolescent behaviour is about testing the boundaries as to where enforcement will kick in, and checking to see that enforcement is fairly and consistently applied when it does. Most adolescent grievances are about circumstances where this has proven not to be the case.

A lot of authoritarianism is about situations where those in authority either lack empathy or are too lazy to do the work required to build up relationships of mutual respect and trust. But once that basic trust and respect is there, my experience is that kids have a very finely attuned sense of justice and actually want an authority system to ensure fairness for all: Their greatest anger is reserved for when those in authority abuse or abdicate their powers and responsibilities, or don't take the trouble to build up relationships of trust in the first place.

I grew up a rebel because I didn't think that basic fairness applied in all too many cases, but I find my kids ended up with an altogether different attitude towards authority because so much in society and education had changed in the meantime. Feminism, the LGBT movement, and better educational norms and standards have achieved an awful lot within the space of one generation.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sun Aug 18th, 2013 at 10:22:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Part of maturation for hominids is establishing dominance rank in one's peer group hierarchy.  Males (tend to) do this physically.  Females (tend to) do this by creating a network.  Bullying is an extreme tactic to rise and then maintain status.

While our brains are hard-wired (sic) for social dominance and submission how that is expressed is plastic and can greatly alter depending on the group's software (sic.)  Good evidence for this is found in the social differences between chimps and bonobos and the Forest Troop and every other baboon troops.

Essentially (and too simply,) it's impossible to remove hierarchy from human society it's possible change the social definition of dominance and how it is expressed.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Tue Aug 20th, 2013 at 11:26:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In this case, I would assign the lion's share of responsibility to the educators, parents and other supposedly responsible persons who failed to teach her to use the most elementary tool in the online safety toolbox: The "off" button.

A forum which tolerates covering a user's "wall" with obscene, abusive graffiti contains nothing that you cannot get better elsewhere. Privately notify those users you want to offer the opportunity to remain in touch, then change the password on your account to a random alphanumeric string and set your e-mail to delete irrevocably and without notification any communication originating from that domain name.

If your self esteem is low enough that you do not believe that you can find a better online community that will accept you as a member, then your problem is that you have a serious mental disorder that you really should get professional help for. And if you're a teenager, the adults in your life really should be paying attention to that sort of thing.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 04:23:59 AM EST
It's not only 14 year old girls.

Plague of game dev harassment erodes industry, spurs support groups:

The greatest threat to the video game industry may be some of its most impassioned fans. Increasingly, game developers are finding themselves under attack by some of the very people they devote their lives to entertaining. And this growing form of gamer-on-game-developer cyber harassment is starting to take its toll.

<snip>

The internet and the anonymity it grants has made harassment easier. According to several studies, Fisk said, the lack of social cues and perceived lack of consequences afforded online communication also changes the way people treat one another.



She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Fri Aug 16th, 2013 at 12:08:56 PM EST
In the age of NSA surveillance my 84 year old grandmother (who doesn't use a computer for anything other than Solitaire) recently gave me a lecture on how nothing on the internet is private. Presumably that awareness is reaching young kids as well, and indeed, that their online actions are more traceable and undeniable than their offline actions. I suspect this will ultimately result in a lot less on-line abuse - although that also depends on more effective international enforcement of laws against remote abuse.

In the early days of email at work there were some  instances of people accidentally hitting the "reply all" instead of the "reply" button when they were making some not altogether flattering comment on a colleague or proposal. People very quickly learned that a supposedly "private" comment in an email could end up just about anywhere and adjusted their behaviour accordingly. Now anyone I know more or less assumes that anything they do on line could end up becoming known to people they might not have wanted to to involve in the process.

But it will take time for that to become more generally known and for on-line social norms to evolve accordingly...

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Aug 17th, 2013 at 08:35:25 AM EST
Honestly I believe ( one of my conspiracy theories, haha) that they intentionally are killing empathy in people because it's good for consumerism, that is religion of today's societies (especially western one but others too).
They are killing empathy starting from very early age by promoting a sick side of individualism and at the same time sick side of "comunity-sm" , by confusing people's feelings.
They are killing people in order to save them :( ... killing them in masses to bring so called democracy that they do not even want or really understand how it is functioning...They are spying millions (potentially billions)of us to make us safe. They are promoting greed as engine for our ever growing economies as a healthy thing so we need to always ask for MORE and never be happy with where we are and what we have and even who we are ...Celebrity culture comes to mind...they first make them celebrities , explore them and in the end are bushing them ...
I am sure there are millions of researches done on how we ended up here ...my point is that it was planed and with specific task in mind...But the end result I assume is not going to be that pretty and ugly face of this lack of empathy  is already showing...    

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sat Aug 17th, 2013 at 08:50:42 PM EST
I've never understood any of this.  I've raised four kids beyond 14 years in the Cyber Age, and none has ever been so wedded to a website to be unable to walk away if jerkitude proliferated.  When there was bullying IRL, which there was, they came to Mummy and me because they actually had a relationship with us.

Which brings me to your final question.  She was your kid, Dad.  Why couldn't she come to you?  Why couldn't you see she was having issues?

And why couldn't she just walk away from a mismanaged site?  I used to post a lot on DKos, but I got fed up with their near-total inability to rein in the asshats, such as the US-based Russophiles who believe they're the only ones who should comment on anything east of Berlin and abuse anyone who does.  Who needs that crap?  And how do you make your life so dependent on unfettered access to a website that, if you lose the latter, you end the former.

by rifek on Fri Aug 30th, 2013 at 10:25:07 AM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]