Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.

Minichan

Topic: More Daily Mail articles meant to combat the internet trolls.

Anonymous A started this discussion 14 years ago #19,142

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136230/Vile-internet-trolls-target-Facebook-tribute-page-girl-touched-Prince-William-Kate.html

Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later[^] [v] #315,203

Internet trolls better be more careful now that Daily Mail is on the case.

squeegee !firstkPE1Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 10 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #315,205

inb4 most epic raid in the history of raids.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 13 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #315,208

I don't know about you guys, but I'm giving up trolling forever. Now that the Daily Mail is on the case trolling is finished.

I also gave up video games and tolerance because the Daily Mail warned that they caused cancer.

squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #315,210

i don't understand why someone would troll like that on a site like facebook, twitter, or anything that linked back to me personally and goes out to an audience that can identify me.

also his trolling was shit tier and it generated generous amounts of mad. see? it's never about quality.

edit: oh wait, this isn't the thread about the kid that was arrested. oh well. i'ma let it stand.

(Edited 50 seconds later.)

Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #315,211

@315,208 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I stopped drinking water because the Daily Mail said it causes drowning. I suggest all Daily Mail readers do the same.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #315,212

@315,210 (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
> also his trolling was shit tier and it generated generous amounts of mad. see? it's never about quality.
It's more the targets they're picking out. Low-hanging fruit and all that.

St !jzYkdX7lIw joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #315,215

I'm looking forward to the day the media pick up on the Chris Chan story

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #315,217

@previous (St !jzYkdX7lIw)
I want to see how they would react to Cliff Yablonski.

Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #315,218

Also The Sun was campaigning against trolls before it was cool:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4264486/Facebook-troll-taunts-mum-as-son-16-killed.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News

Falco !PZmcClOUDk joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #315,219

NO ARRESTS HAVE YET BEEN MADE

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #315,220

@previous (Falco !PZmcClOUDk)
The police need to start arresting more of these internet terrorist trolls.

brrie !OudrPWaUDQ joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #315,221

@previous (A)
I agree fully, put them all in jails.

Fancy jails.

(Edited 18 seconds later.)

Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #315,236

@previous (brrie !OudrPWaUDQ)
with free porn and internets

Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #315,239

When I have time I will do a topic about a current court case that made the people who sued -WEALTHY- Today!!

Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 16 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #315,375

Image went missingThey're also launching a "Block Online Porn" campaign, apparently. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136427/Steven-Hirsch-internet-providers-refuse-block-pornography.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #315,382

@previous (J)
Haha, oh dear. I'm sure that'll be successful.

squeegee !firstkPE1Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #315,387

@315,375 (J)
Lol, they call the first amendment a "well worn argument" and try to blast him for not having a better reason than that to "allow" pornography.

They alsO poo-poo the parents responsibility in monitoring their children's online activity. Lol.

green joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #315,390

@315,375 (J)

Fuck their shit. Blocks should be opt in not opt out.

green double-posted this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #315,392

DM hyperbolising shit again http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2135203/Jamie-13-kissed-girl-But-hes-Sex-Offender-Register-online-porn-warped-mind-.html I had porn mags at 13.

Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #315,393

@315,387 (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
Yeah, it's never the parent's fault is it? There's all these corporations out there forcing their immoral content and products on children, and the parents are completely powerless! Obviously the only solution is to start censoring things.

@315,390 (green)
No, opt-in would mean that some people might escape this bullshit. Opt-out would let them expose everybody to their nonsense.

But anyway, I doubt anything will come of this. It's just the Mail ranting as usual.

Ryan !!YBaRi3MXP joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #315,395

@315,218 (A)

“I was disgusted. How could anyone send a grieving mother a message pretending to be from her dead son? There are no words to describe what these people are. They are not human."


Assholes? Yes. Inhuman? No.

(Edited 15 seconds later.)

Ryan !!YBaRi3MXP double-posted this 14 years ago, 42 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #315,405

> Vile

lol

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #315,408

Image went missingProtip: The Sun disables right-clicking on their website. Take that, ya dang dirty source-viewing trolls!

Anonymous I replied with this 14 years ago, 16 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #315,414

@315,395 (Ryan !!YBaRi3MXP)
Big money in law suites re Internet use to fuck with people. Example 3 days ago

Texas couple smeared online win lawsuit jury awarded the couple $13.78 million in a libel judgment.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/04/25/146735/texas-couple-smeared-online-win.html

Falco !PZmcClOUDk replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #315,416

@315,408 (A)

> Protip: The Sun disables right-clicking on their website. Take that, ya dang dirty source-viewing trolls!

That's odd. I can right click but I'm using OSX.

Anonymous J replied with this 14 years ago, 29 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #315,420

@315,405 (Ryan !!YBaRi3MXP)
They call everything vile. It's their thing.
@315,393 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Labour have said they support an opt-out filter, so if they're elected next year it wouldn't be surprising if they tried to implement it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2135835/Online-porn-Now-Labour-joins-battle-opt-adult-material.html

> Thought you were so righteously opposed to the restriction of freedoms, DM? And why are you trying to take responsibility and duty away from parents, another issue which your poorly-written articles regularly rant about.

It's really saying something that even Daily Mail commenters think this 'campaign' is a load of bollocks.

Anonymous J double-posted this 14 years ago, 23 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #315,421

@315,408 (A)
Doesn't every Murdoch-run site disable right-clicking?

Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #315,423

@previous (J)
Probably.

brrie !OudrPWaUDQ replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #315,512

@315,408 (A)

> Protip: The Sun disables right-clicking on their website. Take that, ya dang dirty source-viewing trolls!

Oh, it is so on!~

Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #315,541

@previous (brrie !OudrPWaUDQ)
The Sun: Too dumb to understand Edit>Select All, Edit>Copy

Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #315,545

@315,408 (A)
> Protip: The Sun disables right-clicking on their website. Take that, ya dang dirty source-viewing trolls!
Oh wow. I can just imagine some clueless editor sitting around demanding to know how people are "stealing" the pictures off their site.

brrie !OudrPWaUDQ replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #315,573

@315,541 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
hahahahaha, yeeeahh.

Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 59 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #315,575

@previous (brrie !OudrPWaUDQ)
I like you when you're not shitposting.

brrie !OudrPWaUDQ replied with this 14 years ago, 27 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #315,576

@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
oh well thanks!~
:

Please familiarise yourself with the rules and markup syntax before posting.