A Lesson In Manners.

Come in and sit down please.  Mister Furlow this is not the place for chewing gum; in my bin please then sit! Settle down at the back there, I know we are not long back from the holidays but it is straight into work mode. Now, I thought today we could talk about internet safety. There has been a lot in the news lately about how people behave online. Can anyone give me an example please? No shouting out, Fergus, and I do not expect to hear that kind of language! Yes, thank you Stefan, trolling. That is exactly what I wanted to look at today.

Let us start with the definition of an Internet Troll; I'll just pop it on the overhead projector here. Can you all see? Please do not make shadow rabbits with your hands Beki, thank you very much.

And we shall begin.

troll²

trəʊl,trɒl

verb

1. 1.

   make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

   "if people are obviously trolling then I'll delete your posts and do my best to ban you"
2. 2.

   carefully and systematically search an area for something.

   "a group of companies trolling for partnership opportunities"

   • fish by trailing a baited line along behind a boat.

     verb: troll; 3rd person present: trolls; past tense: trolled; past participle:trolled; gerund or present participle: trolling

     "we trolled for mackerel"
3. noun

noun: troll; plural noun: trolls

1. 1.

   a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting.

   "one solution is to make a troll's postings invisible to the rest of community once they've been recognized"

   • a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting.
2. 2.

   a line or bait used in trolling for fish.

This is what we shall be talking about today; not those cute fluffy things from the 70's, Neil.

Are we all clear? On we go then.

As you can see, when we talk about internet trolls, we are talking about people who set out to deliberately upset and offend others. Provocative,  as is stated on the whiteboard. I shall tell you a story about a well known sports commentator who particularly liked rugby, but hated football. One day, he tweeted 'Football supporters are all morons and thugs #footy'. This is was not very nice and seemed quite out of the blue. The football supporters were happily ignoring said commentator until one happened to notice the tweet whilst searching the #footy hashtag. So what happened next?

No Joanne, they did NOT do that. Good grief girl, where do you get these things from?

Well, one football supporter told another football supporter. 'What?!' says supporter #2, 'That is ridiculous, I am going to tweet him and ask him why he said that.'

'Good idea' says supporter #1, 'I will too. I have never even spoken to him before and I'm a bit confused.'

So off they went, and tweeted their questions at the offending commentator. Now, this does not go down very well.The commentator (herein known as C) is very cross at being questioned. He says that football has a long history of hooliganism and violence.

'Yes, but that is nothing to do with me' says #1

'Quite,' retorts #2 'and football is changing; don't be so judgemental!'

'NO' says C 'Look at you, wearing your footy shirts, You look just like those who rioted throughout the 80's.'

C was starting to feel irked now.

'Hang on a minute mate, I think we have our wires crossed here. I like football, alright? But I'm not dangerous or violent,' a calm #1 replies.

'Yeah, how about we chat about this like adults?' says an increasingly irritated #2.

'No no NO! Look, a picture of a man in the street kicking another man. Wearing football shirts. It is quite clear!' C then blocked both supporters, before sending out another tweet about how vile and offensive Football supporters are and they are all ganging up on him. Poor him.

As you can imagine, #1 and #2 are more than a little put out at what just transpired, not to mention shocked. Football supporters have been making a real effort to change the image of the sport,  but guys like this were obviously hung up on the old days. Whilst #1 and #2 discuss the situation, supporter #3 notices C's last tweet; shocked, he retweets it so that his followers can see. Now, most of #3's followers are football fans. They are not very happy about this, so like #1 and #2, they try to address the situation. A few minutes later, C, after being the recipient of a number of tweets ranging from questioning and reasonable to outright anger and offence, blocks everyone that has said anything about football supporters being 'OK actually'. Not content with this, C then trawls through their feeds to find other people that need blocking.

To make sure that all his followers understand how positively horrible football supporters are, C sends out a tweet along the lines of 'My god! These footy fans are aggressive. I hope Blatter is paying them well! #AstroTurf' .

Things start to get a bit heated in the Supporters group. They've all been blocked, but don't really understand why. It was C that tweeted something unpleasant, they reacted. Yes it might not all have been perfect but yeesh, what is that guys problem? Then some of them notice other commentators retweeting and favouriting C's last tweet. #1 and #2 are furious! They have no idea who these ppl are and think it highly unlikely any of them have ever SPOKEN to a footy fan, yet now they are showering C with sympathy and support. And what the hell has Blatter to do with it? None of them particularly like him ANYway. They just want to watch football!

The supporters decided to keep an eye on C to see if they can figure out what the problem is. As time goes on, there are more and more tweets about them. Calling them all sorts of names. Screenshots of things they have said in conversation with one another. It is a bit frustrating, as the supporters cannot even contact C now, and hadn't been able to for ages. Then articles in the sports sections of news papers start to appear saying how awful supporters are - how vile and obviously paid for by Big Football.

'But we are not! We have nothing to do with  how football is run, we just love the sport! Why are you saying these things?'

But it is all falling on deaf ears I am afraid,  children. Well, kind of, C is still rooting through the supporters tweets; he then uses them to write more articles in papers, and then in secret sports magazines that  only commentators can access and respond to.

Oliver! Are you listening or are you passing notes to Neil? Face front!

I'm sorry to say that it just goes on and on like this. C continues to tweets inflammatory and dishonest things about football and it's supporters, calling them all sorts of names. Then C writes another article about how unreasonable football supporters (FS) are. The thing is, C is one of the old commentators; he has been around a long time and other commentators think he is just simply wonderful and is the reason they got into commentary themselves. Some of them ask who they need to block in case these football lunatics try to talk to them. Others start to tweet unpleasant things about FS and then are really really surprised when FS get rather cross with them. So they block them too. Even the ones that have never spoken a word about any of it. Well, you can't be too careful you see.

'How are they doing it? Why am I blocked by this person, I have never even heard of them before?' Say FS.
'There has to be a block list they are sharing!'
'Sounds a bit paranoid though. Doesn't it?'

It transpires that C had once been insulted by a footballer and had never quite gotten over it. Sorry what was that Sarah? What did he say? Well I am not sure it is important now as it wasn't a football supporter anyway. Speak up please Sarah...did he apologise for his mistake? Sadly no, no he didn't.

So we come to the end of the story to find that C and his friends are spending time and money on researching football supporters while FS point out that this money needs to be put into finding ways of making football an even better and fairer game. And worse, because of all the terrible things C and his friends have said, some commentators who ARE trying to improve The Beautiful Game, are being refused time and money to do so, and are coming under investigation themselves as they chose to speak with the supporters. C and his friends, though, are getting lots and lots of money to research just how awfully awful a game football actually is.

Unfortunately, in all of this, it was the modern football supporter than got labelled a troll. That really upset them, as I think it is clear to all of us who the troll was. Are you not sure? OK, one sec...

....here we go, I've underlined the important bit...

 1. make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.

So, DAVID PUT THAT AWAY, who do we think the title of troll actually belongs to?

Before you decide, I have a confession to make. That commentator did not really exist, of course he didn't. He would not have his job for very long if he did, and with good reason too.

Oh but what....what is this? A man in Australia has written a whole article about internet trolls. It was an article about another article about internet trolls also written by himself. These are written by a man called Simon Chapman TTT CD BBM JVC. Uh, well no Andy, they are not real qualifications, I am afraid I can't recall the real ones.

Now, can someone tell me anything that they spot in the comments? OK ok, not all at once but yes, a lot have been deleted haven't they. What else do you notice? Yes, Mr Chapman does indeed mention a block list, just like our football supporters thought their commentator had.

He is very upset isn't he boys and girls. Yes Meg, In fact it is quite like my story, isn't it. Shall we have a look at some tweets and see how MUCH it is like my story? 

This tweet you see here was in response to Ms Jollye asking that Mr Chapman talk to the people he was being unpleasant about. That video you see there? That is of a news report that has a lady in the background and this is who he calling a 'winner'. No, it is not very nice is it, I agree.

Do you think that Mr Chapman had already blocked these Vaper people? Yes, he had. For a long time before this. So just like our football supporters, these Vapers were unable to respond or discuss these tweets with Mr Chapman.

Now this is a particularly interesting one. What do you notice here in the tweet he is talking about? Yes, Sarah, his name is not in that tweet, so what does that mean? It means the only way he could have seen it was by watching these vapers whilst he had them blocked. I agree Joanne, it is very creepy. He did something very naughty here too. He took this tweet out of context, which if you remember, means he was deliberately trying to make it look like something else. In fact, @CaeruleanSea and @FergusMason1 were having a joke and Mr Mason was challenged to swear his anger out of his system. It was not directed at anyone in particular. In doing this, Mr Chapman was trying to discredit Ms Jollye so that people would not take the letter she had written seriously.

I would like it if you did not tell your parents about the language in this tweet, but I feel it is part of an important lesson for you.

Is Mr Chapman taking the micky out of ppl with mental health issues? Unfortunately I think he is and again he is trying to insult these vapers. I think this is a particularly nasty one and I feel it is best to move on to the next.

I think this is fairly self explanatory, here is trying to pretend that these Vapers are not real people so all their feelings are just pretend. Do you see how somebody responds to say something negative about vaping? Indeed, David, just like the commentators friends did.

These are some examples of other people insulting the Vapers, even though they have, too, blocked them with little to no interaction. You can see in the last tweet, they even start to attack their own, trying to shame them into not supporting vapers by calling them Astroturf, ie they are not real. A quick question; do you any of you think they have any evidence of these Vapers being fake? No? Ok, lets move on.

Here is a funny one, you see Mr Collard there says something mean to Mr Chapman? Well, Mr Chapman is trying to use this to justify how he has treated Vapers. Unfortunately, Mr Chapman failed to realise that Mr Collard was, and still is, a smoker, not a vaper at all. Vapers did try to tell him this, but of course, they have no way of doing so.

I have left this next tweet until last as I think it shows just how unpleasant Mr Chapman has become.

Can anyone tell me what a quisling is? I will give you a hint, but this is your homework. It is to do with Hitler.

So,what have we learned from all this? If this happened in this classroom, what would we call it? Bullying, yes. And if the bully refused to learn his behaviour was naughty? He would probably be taken out of school, yes Beki. No, Mr Chapman did not get told off. In fact, just like in our story, all his friends are joining in now. On second thoughts, I will let you see two more; these are very recent and they show perfectly that Mr Chapman has no intention of stopping his behaviour. Some might even say he is emboldened.

Who wants to tell me who the troll is here then? OK OK not all at once, but I get the message. Mr Chapman is the troll as per the definition.

So what should we do with Mr Chapman, David? Very wise, we should ignore him. Lorien, he might be a silly little man but I'd like you not to shout out. When we go onto the internet, we must behave as we would in this classroom, or in a job. It is sad that some adults do not understand this but then maybe they are just as mean and unpleasant in real life? I agree with you Peter, I would not like to be friends with them either. We all know about bullies and how easy it is for weak people to try and be their friend. Bullies want attention, it makes them feel special.

OK, well done class. Thank you for listening so well. Just remember these tweets as they might come in handy in the future. There is the bell, off to the playground with you all. CHRISTIE AND PUDDLECOTE! I can see what you have got there and we talked about the hamster and the slide last year didn't we. Oh I am sure he just loves it but back in the cage please. Out out out, all of you!

The Right To Reply: or not, as it happens.

Below are responses written to the tenacious, indefatigable even, Martin McKee who has penned yet another scathing, sneering and downright offensive attack on those that have the bare faced cheek to disagree with him. How irritating it must be to know that there are folk that keep pointing out that what you spout to the media is complete and utter nonsense. Seemingly he has nothing better to d....what was that? Ebola you say?

I fail to understand why journals like the BMJ are giving space to unsubstantiated accusations on members of the public. It is also infuriating beyond WORDS to see the sycophants on Twitter, blindly retweeting McKee's article without question of its validity.  

Anyway, these have been submitted to the BMJ in the correct manner, and only appear here as the journal in question has seen fit to disallow these comments about not being allowed to.. Uh.. Comment...so.. yeah.. 

Submitted by me on 9/10/14

Almost a year to the day[1], here I am writing to defend myself and other honest vapers from the same inflammatory outpourings from the same people. What has been learned in that time by those in the very elite of Public Health? Sadly, it appears to be nothing. For the second day in a row, we are subjected to yet another unsubstantiated and unwarranted attack. These continuous and relentless accusations emanating from the upper echelons of those charged with the protection of our health, ceased to be a curiosity a long time ago. We have tried, relentlessly yes, to talk to and deal with the very people who proclaim to all that will listen that we are either Trolls (the definition[2] of which does not actually apply here) or paid industry stooges (be that Tobacco or E-cig). Now we have the added definitions of ‘extreme libertarians’ or ‘deeply troubled individuals’.

Let me be clear. I am not a paid stooge for ANY industry nor am I a Troll. I say this also for the people that I speak to on a daily basis. I would not even call myself a libertarian let alone an extreme one, though I fail to see why that would be an issue; indeed Mckee rather eloquently made the case for them himself.  Am I a troubled individual? Well, yes actually, but certainly not in the ‘unhinged’ manner which Martin implies. I am troubled by the fact that no matter what we do, what we say, we are totally unable to defend against these accusations and still they persist. In fact, given how often we have tried to refute them, I consider them now to be nothing more than lies, constructed in order to make e-cig advocates so very toxic that we are as likely to be spoken to as a tobacco industry member. I am troubled because far from this idea that the use of the ‘block’ button being as a RESULT of contact we have made, it has often been used BEFORE we have been able to say a word. In fact, the author of this smear piece has been un-contactable for more than a year.  As have some of the people I expect to see respond to this article. Yet somehow we are deemed to still be attacking them (challenging their opinion or asking questions), to such a degree that it warrants repeated opinion pieces being published, often behind paywalls so that we are unable to see.

I am troubled as this feels like we are being bullied by people who are untouchable and unreachable yet have absolute authority and the assumed respect of their peers, the media and the public. What are we, unpaid volunteer advocates or lay vapers, supposed to do in the face of this adversity[3]? If there is indeed proof of astroturfing, then I strongly and passionately request that this be made public immediately as we would be as concerned and upset (if not more) as Martin McKee and his ilk are. As yet, despite repeated requests for this evidence, we have seen nothing.

This debacle is serving only to muddy the waters, delay sensible regulation and, worse, create fear and uncertainty in smokers who would otherwise have chosen harm reduction as their route out of tobacco. In truth, the last of these things is the one that should cause the most consternation in anyone who is genuinely interested in the health and wellbeing of smokers. The greatest irony being that the entire movement is in danger of being handed to the tobacco industry through the fear of their involvement in, what appears to be, the least effective part of the market. In the long run, the attention being paid to unjustified scrutiny of us e-cig users, unsupported theories of gateways and gross lack of understanding of the role of flavours, will make cannon fodder of smokers in your war against the tobacco industry. A war we want no part of. Whilst you gaze at your navels contemplating hypothetical fears, millions of smokers have made the decision themselves to choose harm reduction. 

The big question is; how many didn’t as a result of this relentless scaremongering?

---

[1] Full response to the first McKee BMJ article 27.9.13 http://oxle.com/topic.asp?tid=6459

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

[3] Further reading on why Vapers are angry http://www.theindefatigablefrog.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/the-indefatigable-frog-or-why-this-wont.html

Submitted by Sarah Jakes on the 8/10/14

This is the second article [1] I have read today in which McKee attempts to conflate the e-cigarette industry, libertarian bloggers and angry e-cigarette consumers (vapers) in an attempt to paint the latter group as an astroturf organisation in the pay of either big tobacco or big vapour, which of course to his mind are one and the same thing. Is it any wonder that people who do not have the luxury of being published in prestigious journals such as this get even more angry when being maligned in one?

Either McKee does not understand the public he purports to protect or his comments are disingenuous in the extreme. I know that McKee has read Clive Bates' blog article entitled 'Memo to public health grandees: vaping, vapers and you' [2] which attracted 111 positive comments from consumers and is the most read and shared article on the Counterfactual site. I personally asked McKee to read that article because Bates has absolutely nailed the thoughts and feelings of vapers on the head, as is evident from the comments. My request to McKee to read it was a genuine attempt to create some understanding between our two sides. He confirmed that he'd read it, but the message appears to have fallen on deaf ears. 

McKee is completely entrenched and out of touch. He is of course free to disagree with Bates' article, but cannot deny the fact that it has the widespread support of the very people who are its subject. McKee has himself researched a member of the public and indeed uncovered the shocking fact that one Twitter user (who uses his own name and very colourful language) is a freelance writer who sometimes gets paid to write positive articles about e-cigarettes. If he'd researched further he may also have found that this is common knowledge, as is the fact that the person is a British ex soldier with several tours of duty under his belt, which probably explains the liberal use of creative profanities. One, sometimes foul mouthed, squaddie with a genuinely held belief that public health will kill people doth not an astroturf lobby make.

There appears to be a concerted effort by some in public health to deliberately make false associations between a genuine grass roots consumer campaign and organisations with commercial interests, the more malign the better. This of course serves two purposes, firstly, it undermines the voice and views of the public by instilling  the false belief that their views are paid for rather than their own. Secondly, it allows those in public health who are apparently unable to control their own behaviour to keep their jobs due to "mitigating circumstances" - those circumstances presumably being that they were baited into calling members of the public "c**ts" and "onanists" by industry shills with agendas [3]. 

One thing is for sure - if McKee and others continue to provoke vapers with false accusations whilst failing to engage with them on the issues which are important to them, the relationship between the two sides is only going to get worse, and PH will only have themselves to blame. If your job is public health and you find that the public are angry with you then you really should be asking yourself a question - and here's a clue - it's not "who is paying them".

[1] Martin McKee - Peering through the Smokescreen http://pmj.bmj.com/content/early/2014/10/07/postgradmedj-2014-133029.extract

[2] Clive Bates - The Counterfactual - 'Memo to public health grandees: vaping, vapers and you' http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2391

[3] The Times - E-Cigarette debate Heats up in online War of Words http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4200758.ece

Statement from the Faculty of Public Health (now removed from the site):  "The Board has registered its strong disapproval of Professor Ashton’s comments, whilst noting the mitigating circumstances. The Board also agreed that Professor Ashton should continue in his role as President and has given clear direction on the necessary steps to support his return"