I just got this email from Yahoo! in relation to an answer I gave to an approved question on Yahoo!Answers where it was claimed I breached the Yahoo!Answers Community Guidelines. The question was: “Can the user get suspended even they didn’t violated (sic) the Community Guidelines ?” – The answer from my experience about whether a user of Yahoo!Answers can suffer a detriment even though they did not breach the community guidelines for Yahoo!Answers is “yes”!
The answer on Yahoo! Answers was reported and deleted by “one or more trusted members of the Answers community” who said I breached the Yahoo!Answers Community Guidelines. This was what I posted:
“Yes, I was engaged in a heated debate on Twitter, and people can’t have liked what I replied and so reported me to Twitter. My original post to Atheist Ricky Gervais got re-tweeted by him which led many of his supporters to troll me – I have ‘trolled’ Ricky Gervais in the past and enjoy fending off his followers when he re-tweets me. But it seems that they didn’t like my responses to their posts to me, and Twitter took their word for it! As you can see from the link below I reported it on my news website. When someone tries to censor you the best way to deal with it to keep your rights to free speech is often ‘flooding’ – whatever they don’t want you to say, make it more widely available. It is a bit difficult with companies as big as Yahoo! but as you can see from the link below also, publishing the proof someone has tried to censor you can be as effective as the original comment.”
Yahoo! said following to me by email about my claimed breach of the Yahoo!Answer Community Guideline :
“This answer has been removed and 10 points have been deducted from your account. You may not have realized this, but all answers submitted on Yahoo! Answers must comply with the Answers Community Guidelines.
If you believe that your answer was wrongly deleted by the community and would like to appeal the deletion of your answer, you can have your case reviewed by Answers Customer Care. You have 7 days to submit your appeal. Please be aware that if your appeal is rejected, an additional 10 points will be removed from your account.”
This was the appeal I made to Yahoo! about my alleged breach of Yahoo!Answer’s Community Guidelines using the Yahoo!Answers Community Guidelines:
Share what you know.
I am an Internet trolling expert, including author of the academic book, “Examining the concepts issue and implications of Internet trolling.”
I was courteous and reasonable in my response.
Be a good citizen
I was explaining to the questioner how to resolve issues through free speech in order to secure rights to which they were being denied through abuse of power.
Cite your sources.
I always cite my sources, and being the most published researcher in the world on Internet trolling, many are my peer-reviewed academic works.
Venting, ranting or using hate speech
I did not vent, rant or use hate speech. My answer was based on a paper I have researched due to be published in the academic book, “Politics and Policy in the Information Age” by academic publisher Springer.
Chatting or otherwise violating the question-and-answer format.
I did not do this, even if my answer was informal at the level to be understood by many without my level of understanding.
Being mean or obscene
I was neither of these, as I was discussing a means for people who have had their rights denied to try to reassert them through free speech.
Exploiting the community
I do not do this. As the most published Internet trolling researcher in the world it is highly likely I will need to cite my own peer-reviewed research.
I believe other users are cheating by trying to get me to lose points for an answer that was contrary to their own belief system. I have observed a lot of religious trolling on Yahoo!Answers which is a contentious topic. So Yahoo! might want to investigate whether this is a vexatious complaint.
Violating the law
I did not violate the law. But I believe that those who reported me violated my Convention Rights and other international rights to free speech. If they are making a complaint because it is contrary to their believe system, they are also breaching my civil rights to hold religious points of view and to manifest and impart those.
I did not do this. I explained to the questioner how to ensure their rights to free speech were maintained when others abused their power.
I wrote the answer as dumbed down as I could. Being an academic it is always possible I might use technical jargon without realising it.
I did not cause or incite harm. My motives were to explain to people how to ensure their rights to free speech when others abused their power. I am the world’s foremost expert on Internet trolling, being the first to have an edited book on the subject, and the most published academic. That is a fact.
When I was on Pontypridd Town Council another councillor, Colin Gregory, proposed a motion that a dedicated war memorial be put in Ynysangharad War Memorial Park. I seconded this motion, as he can verify, and the ball was set in motion.
Following that resolution I proposed a number of additional proposals. I proposed that the war memorial also include the miners and other members of the Land Army that contributed. Despite another councillor, Steven Rosser, seconding my motion it was not passed. Being a Co-operative Party councillor at the time, I also said that it should be funded by public subscriptions. This was passed. Yet even though it went into action I am resentful that none of the credit for the policy was given to me. I was not invited to any events and others claimed the credit. Because of this I did not take part in my own policy.
There were a number of other things on the council that others took credit for even though I proposed them. For instance as soon as I was elected to the council I asked the Town Council’s clerk to put on the agenda about having a Charter between RCT Council and Pontypridd Town Council. This went through yet others, like Steve Carter who was Mayor, too the credit.
It seems that the major political parties and independent candidate in the Rhondda Ward election are fighting over who was most instrumental in winning the paddling pool argument.
From my point of view, it doesn’t matter what any politician or council officer says, the people have voted to keep the paddling pool and that vote should be upheld as the people have spoken. RCT Council Officers have no right to over-rule the people. If RCT Officers don’t want to listen to the people in Pontypridd then they should pack their bags and bugger off somewhere else. No one voted for them so who cares what they think?
When I was on Pontypridd Town Council Trallwn councillor Allen Bevan was always saying that the lido would not be good in all weathers and should therefore have a roof. Erm, the definition of a lido is an open air swimming pool.
I agree that the lido should be restored to its former glory as a cultural artefact. But if the council says it cannot run both then the lido should exist as a cultural artefact only, or only be open in the summer months when it may be most feasible to have it open without the problems Allen Bevan spoke of.
Regardless of the merits ofRCT Council’s economic arguments for closing the paddling pool, the people have spoken and they should be listen to. We don’t pay our taxes for referendums to be held and then not honoured. The Officers of RCT can stick their opinions where the Sun doesn’t shine!
If I am elected to Pontypridd Town Council for the Rhondda Ward on 30 May I will bring forward a resolution with the support of the people calling on the Full Council to do all in its power to get the referendum result upheld.
In 2011 I presented a poster to a conference in Wrexham on my research into EEG and autism and how it was possible to determine if someone was autistic from their brain-patterns. This is based on a patent I filed in 2010 which is for a device that uses EEG signals to read people’s brain patters and recommend appropriate behaviour.
A year later a researcher called Frank Duffy had a paper published in BMC Medicine titled, “A stable pattern of EEG spectral coherence distinguishes children with autism from neuro-typical controls – a large case control study.”
Even though I told the journal he was replicating work I had done, they did nothing to right the wrong of Frank Duffy not crediting me for the work of mine that he replicated. By Frank a Duffy copying my work without crediting it that makes Frank Duffy a plagiarist. Does Frank Duffy think it is fair that he is doing this?
Earlier this year someone called Tom Hodder placed a job request on PeoplePerHour asking people to present research of patents and EEG research that would effect his use of EEG in motorbike helmets.
When I notified Tom Hodder of my patent and research he wrote two blog posts. One called “patent troll or just troll? I have definitely been trolled.” and another “irrealis mood as an excuse to talk bollocks“.
In these blog posts Tom Hodder admits my patent is similar to the idea he wanted to take to market. Instead of saying how he wishes he thought of it first, Tom Hodder critiques my writing style and my various identities. Tom Hodder like Frank Duffy might not be as clear as they thought they were. In both cases I should be paid royalties if either uses my IP to assist interaction between people.
I read a blog post by Karen Roberts, who seems to be the de facto election agent for Amanda Jones, who is a candidate for the Rhondda Ward election.
The post, which appears to be about the Pluralist Party I co-founded, concludes with the following:
Now I am all for democracy and getting as many people involved in the electoral system as possible, but really, does this further the democratic cause? I can’t see this one catching on.
What does Karen Roberts mean by this? Does she not think a Pluralist Party that seeks to reduce the size of standing politicians who engulf the membership of political parties and discourage peaceful congress is a good idea?
She critiques our membership policy of only having candidates and councillors as members. That is because we believe having a permanent membership – a grassroots – is not good for democracy.
I joined New Labour in 1997 expecting it to be a pragmatic party that would make parties only when needed to solve the problems of the day. But on leaving and reflecting in 2011 it seems it was far from it. It seemed the only reason Labour members wanted power was to impose their policies on others. My view is that policies should be made as and when the public need them. If I were to be elected by the people of the Rhondda Ward I will seek to use the council as a way to get their issues heard. It should not be for councillors to make policies on the hoof, but to meet the needs of those who elected them.
It seems from Karen Roberts’s post that all she cares about is getting Amanda Jones elected so that Amanda Jones can push the Liberal Democratic Party’s agenda. My party does not have an agenda beyond our value system of being a party of the people – Wales’s People’s Party. If the people of the Rhondda Ward elect me, they will be electing someone who represents them, not a political party, nor myself as with many so-called Independents.
I posted a comment on the Facebook page of Amanda Jones, who is standing for the Liberal Democrats in the Rhondda Ward by-election.
On her ‘Vote Amanda Jones for Rhondda Ward’ page I stated my record in policies relating to the Museum, underneath a post of Amanda Jones photographed at the museum and it was delted.
My comments included mentioning the face that I secured the support of members of a different party when town councillor for Treforest to have the broken Santa light that is displayed on the side of the museum replaced.
Amanda Jones seems to want to gain public support for initiatives she showed no interesting prior to this election, yet puts censorship before the sort of debate true democrats fight for.
When I was on the town council I co-operated with people of all parties and none to do the best for the town, but it seems pluralism and cooperation are not things that are on Amanda Jones’s agenda.
I am a committed European integrationist and fully support economic and monetary union (EMU), including the euro, which I’d like Wales to have one day following a referendum.
But increasingly I have started to find Ukip’s arguments attractive on the ever increased transfer of sovereignty to the European Union on issues that have nothing to do with breaking down barriers to free movement. And it seems so are other people in their country, considering their electoral performance in England this month.
In 1986 Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act, where she created the “internal market”, which has basically meant that the original “common market” is separate from everything else. I got a distinction in this subject on my LLM in EU law – enjoying it because I was learning more about the laws the government can’t make than those they (can)!
When David Cameron has his “renegotiation of powers” I would like him to work towards abolishing every part of the EU except the internal market and EMU – introducing banking union would be a good addition. These mean that we are all so interlocked in terms of trade that we will never go to war against one another. Do we really need to have the EU meddling in nearly every aspect of our lives to enjoy the benefits of these three measures?
I have to agree with the findings of the Office for National Statistics on the difficulties facing young people in Wales today (“Exam stress, cyber bullying and body image – why children today are not happy“, April 4).
Many people say the “Justin Bieber effect” means people thinking they are more important than they are, as the Canadian singing sensation is presented. I would say instead it should reflect the sickness in our own country that any young person who is successful is bullied and abused by those who despise the fact they were not afforded the same opportunities.
We seem to be creating a nation of “narcissists by proxy“. Anyone who is perceived as successful or gifted is forced to defend themselves from abuse, whether on or offline, as the NSO found.
Young people, as I have experienced personally, are put in a position where you have to tell people “how great you are” in order to counteract them telling you “how bad you are”.
Most people in this position will split their mind so like narcissists they can pay attention only to the good sides of them. Is it right we as a nation are forcing our young compatriots to develop psychiatric conditions just because we want to elect parties that need us to be in poverty and resentful of the rich, just so they can stay in power?
I received legal threats via Twitter that if I did not remove an image of Cllr Gavin Callaghan from my website that he would take legal action against me. The discussion started with this post:
@jonathan_bishop I have just had it confirmed that you do not have permission to use my photograph on your website. Please remove asap.
— Gavin Callaghan (@gavin_callaghan) April 25, 2013
Cllr Gavin Callaghan has been an employee of Steve Rotheram MP who has been running a campaign to ‘secure more convictions’ for Internet trolling. Gavin Callaghan is a public figure by virtue of being a councillor and it is right for the media to scrutinise his actions in terms of postings to the Internet, seeing as he supports Mr Rotheram’s position.
The Berne Convention, implemented into EU law through Directive 2001/29/EC gives member states the right to limit copyright in a number of areas, one of which is news. Belgium have made this applicable to news, providing there is an acknowledgement of the source. We fulfil this requirement under Belgian law an d our terms and conditions for Crocels News are subject to the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Belgium.
Furthermore, considering the recent case law in the United Kingdom of Public Relations Consulting Association Limited v The Newspaper Licencing Agency Limited as our website hot-links to the archive.org version of that image then at most it can be considered there only to be a “temporary copy” on our website using the precedent in that case. Cllr Gavin Callaghan is a public figure and the rules of copyright apply differently.
As a cyberlaw expert I have reviewed this for a forthcoming book I am editing. I am confident that should Cllr Gavin Callaghan bring any legal action then a court will consider the use of the image to be freedom of expression and necessary in a democratic society for holding public figures like Cllr Gavin Callaghan who are elected to account. The use of the image contributes to a wider-debate so under UK case law it is a protected use.
Cllr Gavin Callaghan is a less than experienced Labour councillor, as I once was. He might want to refer to the case report for a case I brought to avoid making the same mistake, which I would cite in any court action he were to bring:
I read an interesting account of an experienced councillor on Mail Online ahead of this year’s elections on May 2 or hopefully in my case May 30. I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Robin Page is saying.
Idealist notions of democracy cannot be found on councils, whether town and community council’s where I have experience, or county councils, where in the case of Rhonda Cynon Taf County Council I’m not sure whether I want to seek election to any more – even though I have done so for 2 elections – 2004 and 2008. I didn’t stand in 2012 for very much the same reason that disillusioned Robin Page – the party members vote in block by deciding before the meeting. When Labour have a majority – which they nearly always do – if you are not Labour you will never get anything passed. This is what Robin Page said in his article:
At the same time, councils have become depressingly politicised. Gradually, the party machines have edged out Independent councillors. Today, there are only seven of us left out of 57.
The Tories are in power and they vote as a block. They join the Lib Dems for ‘pre-meeting meetings’ to decide the agenda.
The result is a shamocracy in which the public rarely hears the real issues. Free speech becomes stifled. For example, I once dared to scold another councillor for risking accusations of impropriety by attending a ‘soirée’ hosted by a property developer.
The election I am hoping to stand in – in the Rhondda ward of Pontypridd Town council – was a by-election called following the death of Labour stalwart Pam Harper. Some things I remember Pam Harper saying was “We don’t support opposition” – The ideals expressed in the Labour Party rules about “co-operation” were clearly lost on her. For a scientist like me the council was far from what I wanted.
When I was in the Labour Group they would meet one or two days before the council meeting to decide how to vote. In essence it didn’t matter how good the arguments were during the meeting, as Labour had the majority the vote would go their way – so long as they had the numbers on the night. One could argue that they were there to represent the Labour Party and not the public.