Social media trolls are as bad as drink drivers, the Government’s Suicide Prevention Minister has suggested as she called for society to treat them with the same level of revulsion.

Jackie Doyle-Price said some online behaviour would never be “tolerated in the streets” and people needed to make clear “we don’t find that acceptable”.

She compared online trolling to someone 30 years ago driving after drinking four pints – something that was “socially acceptable” at the time but which now most people would take a “very dim view of”.

It’s an entirely useful analogy. But is it a correct one?

Useful in the sense that yes, it used to be socially acceptable and now it isn’t for the booze. And there are those who are trying to make the “abuse” similarly socially unacceptable. But should we be doing so? Is robust free speech something that should be made socially unacceptable. Possibly, possible not.

No, really, just fine with people having any view on that at all. It’s like burping at the dinner table, chacun a son gout.

Meanwhile, she said social media platforms needed to clamp down on internet trolls and harmful content to stop the “Wild West” nature of the internet.

Which is where the analogy breaks down. Because now she’s saying that pubs shouldn’t serve four pints because someone might then drive….

10 thoughts on “Hmm, well”

  1. “Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Is Cyber Bullying Real Hahahaha Nigga Just Walk Away From The Screen Like Nigga Close Your Eyes Haha” – Tyler, the creator

  2. The Meissen Bison

    …some online behaviour would never be “tolerated in the streets” and people needed to make clear “we don’t find that acceptable”.

    It’s all about anonymity, of course, so the analogy with drunk driving is a poor one.

    An older technology than the internet gives a better example – you are more likely to see someone picking their nose in the car next to yours in traffic than sitting opposite you on a bus or train.

  3. Where do they get the idea that it’s not socially acceptable to drink 4 pints and drive from? It may be so in some circles, not its by no means universal.
    Round my way, the local bobby will have more than that, then run himself home.

    I don’t drink and drive (at-all – not even after a single shandy), but if I disowned ever acquaintance who does I’d know a very small group of people.

  4. The meaning is that rotten Marxist scum agents of tyranny–formerly known as CCHQ–don’t like people not liking their liking for sucking the dick of Marxism, national betrayal/humiliation to and by the EU and tyranny in general.

    So any dissent is defined as “far-right” and off to the races they go.

    Fucking scum.

  5. The correct analogy is that drink driving is forbidden for people she doesn’t like, but people who think like her can be carried to their car after eleven pints and drive themselves home while lying down across the seat.

    That’s the analogy with ‘trolling’.

  6. ‘she said social media platforms needed to clamp down’

    She doesn’t know what ‘platform’ means. Clamping down is the act of a publisher, not a platform.

    ‘on internet trolls’

    She doesn’t know what ‘internet troll’ means. But it’s convenient to use a broad brush on your opposition.

    ‘and harmful content to stop the “Wild West” nature of the internet.’

    The West was quite boring.

    “We tried freedom; it didn’t work. People said what they wanted to say.”

  7. The Government’s Suicide Prevention Minister Jackie Doyle-Price.

    Where do they drag these fuckers up from? We have far too many MPs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *