Three university forensic psychologists say > 'Anti-McCann Trolls Cannot be Cured'

ha ha anti mccann trolls cannot be cured.

I haven't laughed at something I've read on the internet 
so much since the suggestion that we sign up to thank our MPs for doing such a wonderful job for us all.

Abstract

Despite the sustained media attention surrounding internet trolling, academic studies investigating its occurrence are rare. This study aimed to provide a case study analysis of the behaviours and strategies of a group of alleged Twitter trolls referred to as the anti-McCanns due to their continual abuse of Kate and Gerry McCann as well as those who support them and thus identify as pro-McCann. The way in which language was used to construct the anti-McCanns group identity, enhance in-group cohesion and facilitate out-group disassociation from the pro-Mccann group was additionally explored, given that previous research has implicated group processes in the propagation of aggressive online conduct. A multi-method approach involving a combination of ethnographic observations and the collection of online commentary was employed. The data was then analysed using quantitative content analysis and discourse analysis, which indicated that language was utilised in a variety of ways by the anti-McCanns to construct a salient group identity and negatively stereotype and disassociate from the pro-McCann group. Findings additionally revealed that several strategies were employed by the anti-McCann trolls to provoke and derogate members of the pro-McCann group, supporting previous findings which have linked trolling to both western media culture and the characteristics of anti-social personality disorder. The implications of these findings both theoretical and practical are discussed, alongside recommendations for future research.

Keywords

• Online trolling; 
  
• Online abuse; 
  
• Missing persons; 
  
• Social media; 
  
• Cyber psychology
  

---

[size]

1. Introduction

In 2011 Sean Duffy became one of the first internet trolls to receive a custodial sentence in the UK after being jailed for 18 weeks for posting offensive messages and videos on tribute pages created to honour the memory of deceased young girls. One of the deceased persons targeted was 15-year-old Natasha MacBryde, who had been killed after being hit by a train. In a barrage of offensive posts on a Facebook tribute page set up by her family, Duffy left messages such as “I fell asleep on the track lolz”, as well as posting videos depicting children’s character Thomas the tank engine beneath a superimposed image of Miss MacBryde’s face.
Despite the firmly established illegality of internet trolling within the UK, cases such as that of Sean Duffy appear to represent the exception, not the rule. Few others have since culminated in charges being brought, and the taking of legal action is generally deemed extreme and unnecessary, despite the often-significant detriment caused to the individual(s) targeted (Bishop, 2013b). This ostensible reluctance to convict internet trolls is attributed in part to the implementation of Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidelines in 2012 imposing a higher threshold for the criminal prosecution of trolling following an eight-fold increase in cases tried between 2003 and 2011 (Fiveash, 2014). These guidelines specifically propose that the bringing of criminal charges be reserved for circumstances in which communication can be proven to be grossly, as opposed to just merely, offensive (Bishop, 2013b).
The exponential increase in reported incidences of trolling has been accredited in part to the significant rise in social media usage over the past decade. As of January 2016, there were approximately 3.4 billion internet users and 2.3 billion active social media accounts, operating primarily through social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter (Kemp, 2016). Few could deny the pervasive effect such social networking sites have had in recent years. To put this into perspective, Facebook alone was assimilated to the third largest country in the world based on its population size of 1 billion in 2011 (Mal & Parikh, 2011). Twitter.
Meanwhile, a micro-blogging service, currently boasts around 288 million monthly active users and is one of the fastest-growing sites in the world (Chae, 2015).
The primary aim of this research is to provide a case study analysis of a group of alleged Twitter trolls commonly referred to as the anti-McCanns. Operating predominately under pseudonyms, the group are responsible for posting abusive and antagonistic messages on Twitter levelled at both Kate and Gerry McCann, the parents of abducted child Madeleine McCann. The anti-McCanns are also known to engage in verbal attacks against anyone who takes to Twitter to support the McCanns, particularly those who identify as pro-McCann and are therefore perceived to represent an opposing group of sorts. Despite nearly 10 years having passed since Madeleine’s abduction, there are still estimated to be over 100 tweets posted using the McCann hashtag every hour, making this a significant community to investigate in terms of the sheer volume of activity they generate.

1.1. The case of Madeleine Mccann

To put the research aim into context, it is first necessary to consider some of the events surrounding Madeleine’s abduction and the subsequent investigation into her disappearance. On May the 3rd 2007 three-year-old Madeleine was taken from a holiday resort in Praia da Luz, Portugal, after being left with her two-year-old twin brother and sister in an unlocked apartment while her parents dined at a nearby Tapas bar (Machado & Santos, 2009). Her disappearance prompted what has come to be regarded as one the most widely reported child abduction cases in contemporary history, with saturation coverage akin to that which followed the death of Princess Diana (Rehling, 2012).
The investigation into Madeleine’s abduction initially yielded few leads, with those that were pursued failing to generate further clues. The case, however, took a turn on the 31st July 2007 following reports of biological traces in the holiday apartment by two UK sniffer dogs (Machado & Santos, 2009). The outcome of this search was one of the main reasons the McCann’s came to be regarded as suspects, despite widely held concerns surrounding the reliability of cadaver dogs (Lasseter et al., 2003 and Warren, 2015). Nevertheless, Portuguese investigators stood by these identifications and despite the lack of corroborating evidence, put forth the theory that the McCanns had sedated Madeleine, causing her to die in a tragic accident, before attempting to conceal this fact by disposing of her body. Despite these allegations, the McCanns were never formally charged, and as such, are considered innocent.

1.2. Trolling research thus-far

Despite increased interest as of late, existing academic research on trolling is somewhat scarce. The limited research carried out thus far has traditionally focused on the linguistic analysis of corpora containing iterations of the term troll (Phillips, 2015). Hardaker (2010), for example, conducted a content analysis of Usenet posts containing accusations of trolling, identifying its four primary characteristics to be those of aggression, disruption, success and deception. The latter was also emphasised by Judith Donath, who defined trolling as “a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players” (Donath, 1999, p. 40). Hardaker (2013) later identified 6 primary strategies utilised by internet trolls. These ranged from covert tactics such as digression from the discussion topic at hand and the criticism of spelling or grammatical errors made by others, to overt ones such as the use of insensitive, inflammatory and threatening language. Such attempts to define trolling are however limited, as existing forms of trolling not only manifest themselves differently across cultures (De Seta, 2013) but are also constantly evolving in order to adapt to the developments of online environments and interactions (de Seta, 2013, Hardaker, 2013 and Phillips, 2013).
Recently, the focus has shifted from the analysis of online comments to the ethnographic study of communities of trolls (Bishop, 2013b and Phillips, 2015), particularly those who self-identify as such, and in so doing, form a subculture characterised by a distinct set of linguistic features and behavioural norms. Phillips (2015) after carrying out an ethnographic study of a network of self-identifying trolls on 4chan, an open access image-based bulletin board, concluded that trolling in the subcultural sense is predicated on aspects of media culture, with which it forms a symbiotic relationship (Phillips, 2013).
While such findings serve to frame trolling as an unremarkable phenomenon, representative of an extreme manifestation of pre-existing cultural practices, others have lent their support to the notion that those who engage in it may be driven, at least in part, by their individual pathology. Exploring the role of clinical disorders, Bishop (2013b), carried out an in-depth interview with a self-confessed troll, drawing attention to the many similarities between the characteristics of anti-social personality disorder as outlined in the DSM-V and those exhibited by the troll. These included the marked intimacy deficits made evident by the individual’s claim that he enjoyed toying with him, as well as indications of deceitfulness and manipulative and callous behaviour.
[/size]
Similarly, in two online studies exploring the relationship between the dark triad of personality, sadism and trolling behaviour, throughout which a total of 1215 participants were accumulated, trolling behaviour was found to be positively correlated with sadism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism (Buckels, Trapnell & Paulhus, 2014). Of all three measures, sadism, commonly defined as the enjoyment of cruelty, was found to show the most robust associations with trolling, both in terms of enjoyment levels and the extent of which the individual identified as an internet troll, as measured using the Global Assessment of Internet Trolling (GAIT) (Buckels, Trapnell & Paulhus, 2014). This finding, coupled with the fact that sadism was unrelated to the enjoyment of other online activities such as chatting and debating, led them to conclude that cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.
The measures employed were however limited, in that they did not allow for elaboration as to the type of trolling activities participants engaged in, nor the environments in which they occurred. Given that trolling behaviour has been shown to differ significantly between websites such as Facebook and Wikipedia (De Seta, 2013), it is arguably necessary to pinpoint the specific form of trolling being investigated before inferences can be made regarding the intentions and motivations which drive this behaviour.
Shachaf and Hara (2010), who avoided this pitfall by focusing on the behaviour of Wikipedia trolls, interviewed 15 moderators with whom they had engaged in frequent interactions with. Content analysis revealed emerging themes to be those of boredom, attention-seeking, and revenge. They concluded that the trolls came to regard Wikipedia as an entertainment venue through which they could find pleasure in causing damage to the community as well as individual users, all while shielding their identity beneath a cloak of anonymity.
The anonymity afforded by the internet, as pointed out by Widyanto and Griffiths (2011) often encourages a sense of impunity, which can cause users to become disinhibited and behave online in ways which violate the social norms they would otherwise adhere to when engaging in face to face encounters.
Exploring the role of anonymity in the context of internet trolling, Cho & Acquisti (2013) found that a users’ propensity to carry out trolling behaviour decreased as the level of identifying information increased, with significantly less offensive language being used within users’ real name accounts in comparison to those which used pseudonyms.

1.3. Group processes in inflammatory online interactions

The role played by anonymity in facilitating inflammatory online interactions is thought to be mediated by group processes such as that of deindividuation, commonly described as a state of reduced self-awareness typically associated with immersion in a group (Goldstein, 2002) and depersonalization, whereby individuals come to be viewed and attended to in terms of the prototypical attributes of a group they are categorized as belonging to, rather than a unique individual (Lea, Spears & Groot, 2001). These processes form the basis of the social identity model of deindividuation effects (SIDE) (Reicher, Spears, & Postmes, 1995), which contrary to traditional deindividuation theories postulates that anonymity accommodates a shift from the perception of the self and others at a personal level to that of the group, resulting in group polarization and an increased adherence to group, as opposed to idiosyncratic norms. This effect is believed to be exacerbated further when a group’s social identity is particularly salient; an occurrence which Turner (1987) argue is only made possible in the face of perceived opposition to an out-group. The categorization of individuals as belonging to “us or them” can, in turn, culminate in the proliferation of hostile and aggressive behaviours (Tajfel & Turner, 2001).
Lorenzo-Dus, Garcés-Conejos Blitvich and Bou-Franch (2011) for example found that online impoliteness was associated with group identity construction. Where group identity was salient, antagonistic groups used language to construct an “us versus them” dichotomy, with in-group members consequently associating members of the out-group with all the characteristics they viewed as undesirable and disassociating from them.
It is generally accepted that computer-mediated communication lends itself well to the exploration of a group driven anti-normative behaviour given the anonymity it affords and the number of interactions it facilitates, both of which are considered conducive to the process of deindividuation (Lea, Spears & Groot, 2001). Such group processes, however, have yet to receive much systematic study in the context of trolling, the exception being Teppner’s (1997) study of Usenet trolls, in which he argued that trolling resulted in the demarcation of in-group and out-group membership. This manifested itself through those who displayed naivety to the trolls intentions being categorized as the out-group and made subject to derogation by members of the in-group, which in turn consisted of those who had been capable of identifying and resisting the trolls attempts to cause disruption.

1.4. The current study

This case study employs an ethnographic approach, which emphasises the importance of considering online communities as a product of the wider societal culture in which they exist (Hine, 2000), thus aligning with modern conceptualisations of trolling (de Seta, 2013 and Phillips, 2015). This also facilitates exploration of the extent to which the characteristics identified in prior ethnographic studies of trolling, such as those conducted by Phillips (2011) and Donath (1999) apply to the McCann “trolls”.
The manner in which language is used to construct the group identity of, and enhance in-group cohesion and out-group disassociation within and between anti and pro-McCann groups are additionally explored, given the well-established role of inter-group relations in the initiation and sustainment of inflammatory online interaction.

2. Method

2.1. Procedure

As is often necessary when conducting research which relies upon the co-operation of internet trolls, significant effort was placed early on in their identification and recruitment. Hashtag analytics websites such as hashtracking.com and followthehashtag.com were used to identify the most prolific twitter users who tweeted using the McCann hashtag. A twitter account was then created and used to follow the accounts of the individuals identified. Observation of these users’ interactions with other individuals operating under the McCann hashtag allowed for the identification of additional troll accounts to follow. Throughout this process particular attention was paid to the accounts of individuals who were accused of trolling by other users, as well as those named by various pro-McCann users, who essentially acted as informants after being approached by the researcher with a request that they identify the anti-McCann users they perceived to be trolls, the latter approach being endorsed both generally within ethnographic research (Kozinets, 2010) and more specifically with respect to ethnographic trolling research (Phillips, 2015 and Shachaf and Hara, 2010). Those who reciprocated in following the researcher’s account back were then sent private messages requesting their participation in a study exploring tweeting behaviour. This attempt to engage with the trolls through interview was largely unsuccessful. As a result, efforts were refocused solely on the collection of data from public discussions. This was acquired using ethnographic participant observation, a process throughout which the researcher engages in observational and participatory fieldwork with an online community over a period of time (Marwick, 2013), in this case over the duration of 6 weeks. While ethnographic observations were being carried out, the role of group processes was simultaneously explored through the collection of a corpus of tweets, in addition to data acquired via group and one to one conversations with anti-McCann users. The natural formation of the pro and anti-McCann groups negated the need to employ experimental paradigms such as the minimal groups paradigm, in which participants are allocated to groups on the basis of meaningless and arbitrary criteria, which ultimately serves to strip group interactions of the very social context the SIDE model emphasises the importance of (Hornsey, 2008). Unlike their ad-hoc counterparts, naturally formed groups have a historical context, and feature bonds between group members facilitated by sustained interactions and formed on the basis of within-group similarities and between-group differences that hold meaning to their members (Weisel & Böhm, 2015).

2.2. Tweet sample

A sample of 400 tweets obtained from 37 user accounts and containing a total of 7600 words was selected for analysis. Two hundred of these consisted of interaction between members of the anti-McCann group toward in-group members, while the remaining 200 consisted of interaction between members of the anti-McCann group and the pro-McCann users. Though the sourcing of data from Twitter is governed by the same principles which cover human research participants, it is necessary to acknowledge the unique challenges encountered when conducting internet research, such as acquiring consent from anonymous and often unreachable users. It has been proposed that the conflict between conforming to ethical guidelines and successfully carrying out useful internet research might be reconciled by the understanding that social media content is placed in a public place, and as such, should be considered to be available for public consumption (Johns, Chens & Hall, 2004).

2.3. Coding scheme and data analysis

Group cohesion between the anti-McCann users and disassociation from the pro-McCann users was assessed using a coding scheme developed by Luzón (2014)¹. This was composed of a number of indicators some of which indicated positive aspects of social interaction and some of which signified online anti-sociality. The inclusion of both social and anti-social markers, gleaned from previous research on social presence, uninhibited behaviour and online impoliteness between groups offered an ideal framework for the exploration of intra and inter-group relations within the specific context of CMC, such as the manner in which linguistic cues were utilised by anti-McCann contributors to express allegiance to one group and disassociate from another. The former were divided into the 3 subcategories of affective, cohesive and interactive indicators while the latter were likewise separated into the 3 subcategories of negative socioemotional behaviour, group exclusion and confrontational interaction. For a breakdown of the specific indicators coded for within each of the aforementioned subgroups, see Table 1 and Table 2. The prevalence of social and anti-social indicators within the sample was analysed using quantitative content analysis. A discursive approach was additionally employed to identify emerging themes and explore the ways in which language was used by the anti-McCann’s to construct both their own social identity and categorise that of the pro-McCann group. The importance of considering the language employed by a community of interest was emphasised by Markham (1998), who argued that when attempting to delineate the characteristics of the individuals who inhabit a particular social space, virtual ethnography must consider also the “Text of people who constitute these social spaces, [as] the process of building relationships and social structures is thoroughly dialogic: online cultures exist because people interact with each other through writing over time” (p. 210).


Table 1.
Frequencies and percentages of indicators of anti-social behaviour.

[th]Indicator[/th][th]Frequencies[/th][th]Percentages[/th][th]Negative socio-emotional behaviour[/th][th]Group exclusion[/th][th]Confrontational interaction[/th]

Paralanguage (e.g. Word capitalisation)	68	34%
Verbal expression of emotion	14	7%
Irony/sarcasm	4	2%
Exclusionary language	76	38%
Personal attacks	94	47%
Disassociation from other	51	25.5%
Argument criticism	68	34%
Quoting and referring to for confrontation	168	84%
Strong disagreement/correction	70	35%
Imperatives/directives	14	7%
Request/invitation to respond	24	12%

[size]

Table options



Table 2.
Frequencies and percentages of indicators of social behaviour.

[/size][th]Indicator[/th][th]Frequencies[/th][th]Percentages[/th][th]Affective[/th][th]Cohesive[/th][th]Interactive[/th]

Paralanguage (e.g. emoticons)	26	13%
Informal expression of oral discourse	4	2%
Verbal expression of emotion	54	27%
Humour	7	3.5%
Self-disclosure	12	6%
Vocatives	16	8%
Inclusive pronouns	85	42.5%
Appeal to shared knowledge	42	21%
Acknowledgements	128	64%
Approval	54	27%
Agreement/polite disagreement	100	50%
Collaboratively following the thread	44	22%
Request/invitation to respond	70	10%

[size]

Table options

[/size]

3. Results

3.1. Ethnographic report

Initial observations of the McCann trolls took place over a six-week period, commencing at the end of May 2015 and concluding in mid-July 2015. Several observations were noted via field notes throughout this time. These revealed a number of basic patterns with respect to the way in which the trolls interacted with both one another and pro-McCann contributors. First, the insults and abuse levelled at both the McCann’s and pro-McCann users were constant, repetitive, and in clear violation of Twitter policies, though user accounts were rarely suspended. Observations carried out at various intervals throughout the day and corroborated using hashtag analytics indicated that Twitter discussions using the McCann hashtag usually peaked in the early hours of the morning between 6 and 9am. They would then experience a lull during the day, before increasing dramatically once again in the evening, typically at around 7pm. It was noted that while many of the regular anti-McCann contributors were absent during typical working hours, others were posting continuously and appeared to be able to dedicate an inordinate amount of time to their activity on Twitter. This observation parallels that made by Phillips (2015), who concluded that the trolls she had encountered on 4chan were likely somewhat privileged. Similar inferences were drawn in this case, and were to an extent verified by group members who appeared keen to illustrate this point. A pertinent example of this was the case of a prolific contributor who described herself as “a wealthy housewife” before sending the researcher an image of a summer house she alleged to have sold for a large sum of money. When making such assertions however, it is worth also considering alternative explanations for the behavioural patterns identified. It is possible for example that the anti-McCann users continued to contribute to discussions while at work, or were operating in countries with different time zones, such as Australia where several users purported to be based.

3.2. Cadaver dog discussion

After several weeks simply observing the anti-McCann users and the way in which they engaged with other hashtag McCann contributors, the researcher attempted to engage the trolls in a discussion pertaining to the validity of the cadaver dogs, which was noted as being one of the most frequently evidenced topics discussed by the McCann trolls. This conversation was initiated on the evening of July 5th, 2015 after the researcher posted a tweet stating that cadaver dogs make false positive errors 10–20% of the time when working in hot temperatures alongside a link to the journal article from which this finding was obtained. The trolls’ responses were plentiful and instantaneous, prompting an in-depth discussion which lasted approximately 3 h. Throughout this time a total of over 100 messages were accumulated.
The first of these took the form of a dismissive claim made by an anti-McCann user stating that “it wasn’t hot” which immediately preceded two responses from pro-McCann users, both of whom expressed interest in reading the article. As more users began to contribute to the discussion thread, some of the anti-McCann members began to become suspicious of the researcher due to their newcomer status, as evidenced by their limited tweeting activity. This led an anti-McCann user to confront the researcher by suggesting that they seemed “to have made this account just to make this point”.
This was followed by an accusation that the researcher was “nothing but a cheap shill”, shill being a term frequently used by anti-McCann users in reference to an individual whom they believe is being paid to spin the facts in the McCann’s favour.
This accusation prompted the involvement of several more anti-McCann as well as pro-McCann users, though any genuine attempts to discuss the case were rebuffed. Where references were made to the journal article, responses became hostile, with one user stating that he did not “care about the stupid article”. The discussion soon escalated, resulting in the anti-McCann’s posting various insulting statements targeted at anyone who disagreed with them. In an apparent display of confirmation bias, the anti-McCann users continued to ignore any evidence presented which refuted or failed to align with their purported belief that the McCann’s were responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance, even proceeding to block those who were persistent in attempting to engage them in a cogent discussion of the facts. This included in some instances, the researcher.

3.3. Trolling strategies

A number of strategies identified in previous research (Hardaker, 2013 and Phillips, 2015) as constituting trolling behaviour were observed when participating in this discussion. The main strategy employed was a tangential digression from the topic of conversation, most often expressed through spamming the conversation thread with non-sequiturs. Such statements often incorporated claims that the cadaver dogs Eddie and Keela had never been wrong and were sent in a succession of up to 20 messages irrespective of their relevance to the discussion topic at hand.
Any attempt to initiate a legitimate discussion about the McCann case was usually met with extreme hostility in the face of little provocation, often culminating in the person who had raised the point being personally attacked. Such verbal attacks typically involved insinuations that the individual to have broached the subject was stupid or incapable of comprehending that which they perceived to be glaringly obvious. The researcher, for instance, was told that they must be, “Thick as bricks. It’s so easy a child could work it out”.
Another interesting observation related to the way in which the word “shill” was used. As aforementioned this was a term used to refer to an individual they believed to be under the employ of the McCann’s. It was, however, used by the anti-McCann’s to refer to virtually everyone who they perceived to be group outsiders, even those who claimed to be neutral. Phillips (2015) suggested that individuals engaging in covert trolling may use subtle cues she refers to as calling cards, in order to inform other trolls of their success or identify someone who took the bait, so that other trolls might join in and cause further disruption. Whenever this term was used, anti-McCann users presented themselves in abundance and typically proceeded to mock the naivety or intelligence of the individual identified.
Many of the McCann trolls used images of Kate and Gerry McCann as their profile images, typically favouring images of Kate McCann jogging or the couple smiling after Madeleine’s abduction in order to reinforce the expressed group belief that they were in some way culpable. They also frequently distributed memes and offensive images in an apparent attempt to elicit a response from pro-McCann users. These memes typically depicted Kate or Gerry McCann with large sums of money and captions such as “it’s not about the money but please keep donating” and “I’ve been working really hard, says Kate #McCann who gave up her job 8 years ago after her daughter was ‘taken’.

3.4. Exposure of research aim

After engaging in this initial discussion, an individual who had been approached prior to the fact via direct message weighed into the conversation, informing the others of the researcher’s intentions by referring to them as ”the psychology student studying trolls”. Though none of the individuals approached were informed of the nature of the research, they were able to gage an understanding of its purpose upon viewing the intended interview questions. At this point many became increasingly hostile and launched a personal attack on the researcher, displaying many of the vengeful behaviours identified by previous researchers (Bishop, 2013b, Hardaker, 2010 and Hardaker, 2013), though in this case these primarily focused on the criticism of grammatical errors and suggestions that the researcher lacked the intelligence necessary to conduct academic research, as illustrated by comments such as “Stick to your psychology studies, you need to do something constructive with your time”, “you need better English to do a PHD luv!” and “if your bias [sic] your dissertation will be a complete failure you need my help”. This continued for several minutes, with anti-McCann users continuing to mock the researcher amongst themselves as highlighted by the discussion below.

“She should at least have the intelligence to read the PJ files before spouting off, eh!”

“Well with that level of perception I’m amazed she got in”

“she sent me a questionare file back in May, lots of stupid q’s”

“Oh FFS. X”

“lol xx”

[size]

At this point an anti-McCann user who had not taken part in the initial conversation addressed the researcher, saying “One notes one’s following one. Am I correct in assuming you must be in the v earliest stage of your psy course? #McCann”. Upon being informed that this was not the case, he proceeded to post a series of nonsensical statements, which, can be observed below.
[/size]

“ACE I love it when I’m wrong! Coz it’s so fkn rare that I am. By the way, I’m also the Pope when I’m not on here!”

“When me and my mates woz iz in the LAST months of our Masters we’d already done our research You’ve left it v late!”

“I’ve been researching abuse on the internet since June 2013. The #McCann case lends itself SUPERBLY #Media #Police et al”

[size]

When asked what he had studied at university he responded “#FatLorraFknGoodItDidTho I now dig ditches for a living. Rather have muscles than a fat arse from sitting down”. Interestingly, such statements were analogous to those made by the troll interviewed by Bishop (2013b), who he argued represented a type of troll he referred to as a “hater” given their propensity to undervalue and mock those whom they perceived to hold specific achievements. In a statement which very much mirrors that quoted above, the individual interviewed suggested that he had been “unconditionally offered a PhD (sic) placement, but instead choose to contribute to society, rather than masturbate (his) life away on deluded mentalist follies”.
The frequencies with which anti-social and social indicators featured in the sample are presented in Table 1 and Table 2 respectively. Examples of tweets illustrating the use of a subset of both anti-social and social indicators can be found in Table 3 and Table 4.

Table 3.
Examples of tweets illustrating the use of paralanguage, personal Attacks, and discourse used to disassociate from the pro-Mccann group.

[/size][th]Paralanguage[/th][th]Personal attacks[/th][th]Disassociation from group[/th]

“I said, SAVING HER OWN ARSE DOESNT COUNT. There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO reason a desperate mum would not cooperate “it takes INTENT. Wee M DISGUSTED k8 Why? Was she a wee Slut flirting w all the men? Stealing K8 beauty?	“says the big strong shill who runs and blocks like a weak BITCH. “UM mebbe it was K8 TELLING US about her torn genitals, deadness on a slab, burial … ? #CANT #MCCANN #stupidisasstupidsays” “Stupid tactics by Stupid people”	“Pammy Pammy Pammy, we’re not all like you weirdos, i’ve no interest in any of u love. Now get a grip. We do, however, have SURVIVING CHILDREN.#sotheresthat #McCann #lifeofFail “lol @ madam muck, definitely thinks shes better than she is, mums have ONE JOB = look after their children #mccann FAIL”

[size]

Table options



Table 4.
Examples of tweets illustrating the use of vocatives, inclusive pronouns and discourse centred around the sharing of knowledge.

[/size][th]Vocatives[/th][th]Inclusive pronouns[/th][th]Appeal to shared knowledge[/th]

“Isabelle, may I commend you on #mccann vids! We need more like you! Ignore jealousy!” “ask it a question nikki, its like pouring water on the Witch of the West.	nearly £53K we gave … I’m sure it would have paid for a few jig saws put together No amount of your wishing we will go away will change the fact that we’re here until there is JUSTICE.	“#mccann #GoncaloAmaral Just paid my troll fine for the week. Have you?http://www.gofundme.com/Legal-DefencePJGAMakes tweeting a pleasure” We can say that poor M #McCann died and the parents hid her body cos that’s in the PJ files “Isabelle McFaddens video and latest Goncalo Amaral news

[size]

Table options

[/size]

3.5. Antisocial indicators

3.5.1. Group exclusion

3.5.1.1. Personal attacks
Indicators of group exclusion were comprised mainly of the use of personal attacks, which featured heavily in the anti-McCann members’ interactions with the pro-McCann users at a rate of 47%. These personal attacks primarily involved the use of curse words and vitriolic language as demonstrated by the examples in Table 3.
Subtler forms of personal attack, such as the use of sarcastic and condescending language which served to mock and undermine pro-McCann members were also observed, and externalized through use of the hashtags such as “stupid is as stupid says” and suggestions that pro-McCann users were lacking in intelligence, both of which can also be observed in Table 3.
3.5.1.2. Disassociation from group
Another prevalent strategy used to facilitate group exclusion was the use of language to disassociate from the pro-McCann group members which were employed within 25% of the tweets analysed. This was often expressed through the utilisation of “us” v “them” terminology with Kate and Gerry McCann and all those perceived to support them being associated with a variety of negative traits, such as the inability to protect their children, as depicted by the examples in Table 3.

3.6. Social indicators

3.6.1. Group cohesion

3.6.1.1. Appeal to shared knowledge
As shown in Table 2, one of the most prevalent cohesive indicators used by the anti-McCann’s was the posting of links which served to appeal to shared knowledge, a strategy commonly used in circumstances which feature online conflict as a means to strengthen a particular group’s position (Luzón, 2014), or facilitate the achievement of group goals. These links featured in 21% of the overall tweets sampled and were almost always for the Gofundme page of Gonçalo Amaral, the detective who led the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance before accusing the McCann’s of covering up her death. They were often accompanied by captions such as fiver Friday, which facilitated a shift in focus from individual to group goals, in this case funding Amaral’s legal defence. The fact that “fiver Friday” resulted in anti-McCann users coming together in a specific virtual space at a specific time seemingly increased group cohesiveness, which can in some circumstances be restricted within virtual communities given that they are more dispersed in terms of space and time (Hiltz & Wellman, 1997). Other links frequently featured included those for the McCann files, as well as links to videos made by individual users discussing the case which appeared to be posted and retweeted in order to share information, solidify arguments and express solidarity and support as evidenced by the examples outlined in Table 4.
3.6.1.2. Use of vocatives
The use of names to refer to one another was quite rare, featuring in just 8% of the tweets sampled. This may however be accounted for in part by the automatic incorporation of usernames when responding to or addressing others on Twitter, as well as the fact that the majority of the McCann’s used pseudonyms in lieu of their real names. Where anti-McCann users did refer to in-group members by their names, they almost always referred to two prolific users named Isabelle, and Nikki, who, unlike the majority of the group used their full names and images of their likeness, though establishing the veracity of such details is, of course, difficult. Use of their names was seemingly intended as a term of endearment and a means to express admiration and support. Examples of tweets which featured the use of vocatives are presented in Table 4.

3.7. Discursive themes

A number of discursive themes were identified, the most prominent of which were those of motherhood, justice and freedom of speech. Examples of the tweets which embodied each theme are presented in Table 5.



Table 5.
Discursive themes identified presented alongside a subset of tweets.

[th]Theme[/th][th]Example tweets[/th]

Motherhood	“Keith Bennets mum spent every spare minute digging the moors with a teaspoon. Not #McCann who jogged”
	“this is what gets me MOST @ #McCann. Some folk wont realize, but most mums WANT to be w kiddies, especially littlies!”
Justice	“Paedophile? Kiddie killer? Lonely? Join Team #McCann and find a sympathetic ear. FREE REIGN - They’ll excuse anything”
	“It doesn’t matter how much you bully, abuse & mock, we will NEVER give up until there is Justice for Maddie”
Freedom of speech	Everyone should be allowed freedom of expression without intimidation into personal lives, don’t you think?
	“Those who live thru suppression become passionate about freedom. #mccann censorship & shills r attempts remove freedom of speech”

[size]

Table options

3.8. Motherhood

The anti-McCanns frequently referenced motherhood in order to construct themselves as paragons of good parenting, while Kate McCann and pro-McCann users were constructed as the very embodiment of poor parenting, often being referred to as neglectful, uncaring and generally devoid of all the characteristics they perceived as being synonymous with good parenting. With respect to Kate McCann specific references were made to her “negligent” parenting style and her behaviour and demeanour shortly after Madeleine’s disappearance, with particular emphasis placed on the fact that she had not physically searched for Madeleine. Such attacks on Kate McCann’s parenting are reminiscent of the stance taken by mainstream media shortly after Madeleine’s disappearance, which, when not formulating hypotheses as to the identity of Madeleine’s abductor focused its efforts on employing moral news discourses which framed the McCann’s as “bad” parents, who were negligent in leaving their children in the apartment alone and appeared too controlled in the wake of such a tragic event. Kate, in particular was subject to repeated insinuations that she had failed to exhibit the level of emotionality expected from that of a mother concerned for the well-being of her missing child (Goc, 2009). Contempt for her was such in the aftermath of Madeleine’s disappearance that journalists went as far as to label her as being too serene for sympathy (Goc, 2009). Underlining this sense of disassociation with the McCann’s plight, Enright (2007) suggested that distancing ourselves from the McCanns was a potent form of magic as it keeps our children safe. Examples of the manner in which the theme of motherhood is materialized are presented in Table 5.
This theme also implied a strong female presence within the anti-McCann group, a finding which contrasts with the majority of trolling research in which the individuals being observed are typically perceived as being male due to the misogynistic sentiments they often express, sometimes under the guise of a female alias (Herring et al., 2002 and Phillips, 2015). Though accusations were made suggesting that members of the anti-McCann group were, in fact, males purporting to be female, the clandestine nature of internet trolling makes such claims difficult to verify.

3.9. Justice

Another prominent theme was that of justice. Mirroring the findings of Kennedy (2010), who analysed YouTube comments relating to the McCann case, anti-McCann users framed their comments as a plea for justice for Madeleine, though this appeared to be little more than a means to justify the ongoing perpetuation of abuse toward the McCanns. Conversation relating to the notion of justice also typically referenced the belief that the McCanns were being aided by a compliant media, or a government-wide conspiracy devised to protect paedophiles. Such rhetoric often centred on recent controversies surrounding alleged cover-ups, amidst thoroughly unfounded allegations that the McCanns themselves formed part of a paedophile ring. The anti-McCanns, therefore, constructed their social identity as purveyors of justice, while the McCanns and those who supported them were constructed as enablers of sexual abuse, lacking in moral fibre, and representative of an obstacle in their fight for justice and the protection of children, as illustrated by the examples tweets in Table 5.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this research was to provide an ethnographic account of the behaviours exhibited by the anti-McCann trolls, as well as the way in which they used language to construct their social identity, enhance in-group cohesion and facilitate disassociation from a perceived outgroup. In doing so, it aimed to fill a lacuna in the case study of a specific group of internet trolls, as well as the role of group processes in a trolling context.
It must first be noted that the individuals observed over the course of this study do not appear to represent trolls in the sub-cultural sense such as those identified by Phillips, as they did not self-identify as such, but rather constructed their social identity as that of a group of justice seekers, determined to denounce the individuals and institutions they perceived as being complicit in the cover-up of child abuse. Analysis of the language used in discourse relating to justice seeking, however, indicated that this was simply used to mask the trolls underlying intentions to continue directing verbal abuse at Kate and Gerry McCann, as well as those who lent them their support, thus supporting the findings of Kennedy (2010). It might, therefore, be useful for future research to explore the ways in which disingenuous intentions and manipulative behaviours manifest themselves linguistically and as an extension of this, how they might consequently be identified. This would hold particular utility when investigating online communities such as that of the anti-McCanns, in which the nature of the content being discussed makes it difficult to discern any genuine, albeit controversial statements from those made with the intention of creating conflict for amusements sake, the motivation underlying the latter being what distinguishes trolling from the making of belligerent comments when engaged in a hostile debate (Leaver, 2013 and Phillips, 2011).
While attempts were made to gage a first-hand understanding of the anti-McCann users intentions, their proclivity to decline the invitation for an interview meant that all the behaviours identified as constituting trolling were based primarily on the perceptions of individuals who formed part of a community of users who regularly tweeted using the McCann hashtag, or, where little elaboration was given as to why a particular behaviour was perceived to constitute trolling, the interpretation of the researcher.
This led to the identification of a range of behaviours and perceived trolling strategies, which ranged from continuously spamming discussion threads with nonsensical statements to attempting to engage others in a game of transgressive one-upmanship and, in their most extreme form the use of vitriolic language and the distribution of offensive memes. The diverse nature of strategies identified corroborates previous findings (Hardaker, 2013 and Phillips, 2015) and consequently, the notion that trolling is characterised by a wealth of behaviours even within a specific group (Phillips, 2012).
In terms of group processes, findings contrasted with those of Shachaf and Hara (2010) who found that trolls typically operated in isolation, revealing instead that the anti-McCann trolls appeared to work within an anti-social network of sorts, thereby aligning with the findings of both Phillips (2015) and Tepper (1997). The anonymity of anti-McCann group members and the salience of their social identity, as evidenced by the linguistic realization of politeness and impoliteness indicators, formed the conditions conducive to the process of both deindividuation and depersonalization, resulting in those who were considered to prescribe to group norms being categorized as in-group members and those who did not categorized as belonging to a perceived out-group. Reflecting the findings of Tepper (1997) the anti-McCann trolls were found to define themselves using “us and them” terminology, displaying antagonistic behaviour toward and mocking the pro-McCann users, thus lending support to his assessment that trolling is “A game that all those who know the rules can play against all those who do not” (p.40).
At an idiosyncratic level, a number of parallels were drawn between the comments made by some of the anti-McCann trolls and those made by the “hater troll” interviewed by Bishop (2013b), which were found to reflect the criteria for antisocial personality disorder as specified within the DSM-V. The continued exploration of the role of antisocial personality disorder in trolling behaviour may, therefore, represent a fruitful avenue for future research, particularly as it shares many of its characteristics with psychopathy (Cale & Lilienfield, 2002), which Buckels, Trapnell and Paulhus (2014) found to be strongly correlated with trolling. The notion of a relationship between trolling and antisocial personality disorder is further supported by the McCann trolls’ unwavering endorsement of the right to unfettered free speech and their profound resistance to authority, particularly where online censorship is concerned. This adversity to the regulation of online spaces has been shown to be one of the only consistent characteristics of internet trolls (Phillips, 2011), as well as a defining feature of antisocial personality disorder (Black & Larson, 2000).
Beyond individual pathology, findings additionally supported Phillips’ (2015) assertion that trolls are “cultural scavengers” who essentially feast on existing issues of controversy which first pass through the media filter. This was particularly evident in the case of the anti-McCanns given that the trolling was preceded by a series of equally provocative and unsubstantiated news reports implicating the McCanns in Madeleine’s disappearance, and was thereafter fed by media reports condemning the trolls’ actions and consequently showering them with the very attention they appear to covet (Bishop, 2013a and Phillips, 2015). It is, therefore, evident that the “don’t feed the trolls” credo is somewhat futile when they exist within a cultural system which does precisely that, and in so doing, contributes to both the initiation and sustainment of trolling behaviour.
It is critical to acknowledge, however, that research exploring the role of the media in shaping trolling behaviour is vastly over-represented in western parts of the world, and thus generates findings that can only be generalized to western cultural systems. Enhancing our understanding of the relationship between media and trolling behaviour necessitates that existing research be contrasted with future research exploring this relationship in parts of the world where the media exists under state ownership.

4.1. Implications and limitations

The finding that anonymity contributes to the perpetuation of trolling might prove useful in informing preventive strategies, such as the prohibition of the use of pseudonyms on Twitter. This approach is currently employed by Facebook, and while it still remains subject to occasional exploitation by trolls (Leaver, 2013), the higher degree of transparency with respect to user identities makes this substantially easier to regulate. At the group level however, where a group is rendered identifiable to an out-group, particularly a powerful one capable of repressing the in-group, the consequential visibility between in-group members might simply cause them to rally together and adjust their actions so as to resist the powerful outgroup (Lea, Spears & Groot, 2001). The manner in which a community of trolls might negotiate their behaviour in response to attempts at repression by a powerful out-group, such as moderators on a forum might therefore serve as a useful avenue for future research.
[/size]
The first limitation of note is the selection of accounts to follow on the basis of their interaction with prolific users. Given that interactions on social media are underpinned by the principle of homophily, that is the tendency for people to “associate with other people and groups who are mostly like themselves” (Yardi & Boyd, 2010, p. 316) this technique was effective in identifying additional trolls’ accounts to follow. However, many such interactions are also ephemeral in nature, meaning that those who engage in them might not necessarily be invested in the topic or regularly contribute to its discussion (Bruns & Burgess, 2011). This was underscored by the fact that some of the accounts followed engaged in very little discussion using the McCann hashtag. In hindsight, it may have been more efficient to search each account identified as potentially belonging to a McCann troll on a website such as Greptweet, through which a large number of archived tweets can be viewed.
Despite ethnography being endorsed as one of the most useful methods for ascertaining the “reality” of a community or situation (Creswell, 1998), it is critical to acknowledge the subjectivity which surrounds a researcher’s discernment of this reality (Hine, 2000). An ethnographer’s interpretation can be considered to be “one truth of a potential many, with each truth being just as valid as the next. No one truth is exhaustive and definitive, but an attempt at persuasion” (Rosaldo 1986, p. 80). The external validity of this research might, therefore, be somewhat limited by this fact.

5. Conclusion

This research emphasises the fact that trolling is a complicated phenomenon which cannot be reduced to any single definition or explanation, with individual pathology, group processes and cultural context all being implicated as contributory factors. More research is needed, particularly with respect to the way in which trolling can be inferred when it centres on discourse relating to wider political issues. In light of this, the trolling behaviours perceived to have been exhibited by the anti-McCann’s can only be tentatively distinguished from malicious impoliteness and other forms of online abuse. What remains clear, however, is the damaging impact the McCann trolls’ behaviour has had on those victimised, both online and offline, necessitating the continuation of research exploring the way in which aggressive forms of trolling materialise, so that we might consequently establish ways in which to effectively deal with them. This research sought to make a small step in this direction.

Author contribution

At the time of writing Dr John Synnott was a Senior Lecturer and Assistant Course Director of the MSc in Investigative Psychology, Andria Coulias was a Graduate of the MSc in Investigative Psychology and Dr Maria Ioannou was a Reader in Forensic and Investigative Psychology and Course Director of the MSc in Investigative Psychology, all at the University of Huddersfield.

References

[list=references]
[*]

• Bishop, 2013a
  
• J. Bishop
  
• The art of trolling law enforcement: A review and model for implementing ‘flame trolling’ legislation enacted in great Britain (1981–2012)
  
• International Review of Law Computers & Technology, 27 (3) (2013), pp. 301–318 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2013.796706
  
• CrossRef
   | 
  View Record in Scopus
   | 
  Citing articles (8)
  

[*]

• Bishop, 2013b
  
• J. Bishop
  
• The effect of deindividuation of the internet troller on criminal procedure implementation: An interview with a hater
  
• International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 7 (2013), pp. 28–48
  
• View Record in Scopus
   | 
  Citing articles (15)
  

[*]

• Black. and Larson, 2000
  
• D. Black, C.L. Larson
  
• Bad boys, bad men: Confronting antisocial personality disorder
  
• Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)
  
  

[*]

• Bruns and Burgess, 2011
  
• A. Bruns, J.E. Burgess
  
• The use of twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics
  
• Proceedings of the 6Th European Consortium for political research (ECPR) general Conference 2011, University of Iceland, Reykjavik (2011) http://eprints.qut.edu.au/46515/1/The_Use_of_Twitter_Hashtags_in_the_Formation_of_Ad_Hoc_Publics_(final).pdf
  
  

[*]

• Buckels et al., 2014
  
• E.E. Buckels, P.D. Trapnell, D.L. Paulhus
  
• Trolls just want to have fun
  
• Personality and Individual Differences, 67 (2014), pp. 97–102 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.016
  
• Article
   | 
  
  
•  PDF (311 K)
  

[/list]
[size]
 | 
View Record in Scopus
 | 
Citing articles (66)
[/size][*]

• Cale and Lilienfeld, 2002
  
• E.M. Cale, S.O. Lilienfeld
  
• Sex differences in psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder: A review and integration
  
• Clinical Psychology Review, 22 (8) (2002), pp. 1179–1207
  
• Article
   | 
  
  
•  PDF (221 K)
  

[*]
 | 
View Record in Scopus
 | 
Citing articles (156)
[*]

• Chae, 2015
  
• B. Chae
  
• Insights from hashtag #supplychain and twitter analytics: Considering twitter and twitter data for supply chain practice and research
  
• International Journal of Production Economics, 165 (2015), pp. 247–259
  
• Article
   | 
  
  
•  PDF (1354 K)
   | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (21)
  

[*]

• Cho and Aquisti, 2013
  
• D. Cho, A. Aquisti
  
• The more social cues, the less trolling?: an empirical study of online commenting behaviours
  
• Proceedings of the 12th workshop on Economics of information Security (WEIS), D.C, Washington (2013)
  
  

[*]

• Creswell, 1998
  
• J.W. Creswell
  
• Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions
  
• Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif (1998)
  
  

[*]

• Donath, 1999
  
• J.S. Donath
  
• Identity and deception in the virtual community
  
• Marc A. Smith, P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace, Routledge, , London (1999)
  
  

[*]

• Fiveash, 2014
  
• K. Fiveash
  
• Troll-hunting cases SPIKED in 2012... but remain high
  
• (2014) The register. 24 January
  
  

[*]

• Goc, 2009
  
• N. Goc
  
• C. Burns (Ed.), Bad Mummy – Kate McCann, Medea and the media in mis/representing evil: Evil in an interdisciplinary key, Interdisciplinary Press, Oxford (2009)
  
  

[*]

• Goldstein, 2002
  
• A.P. Goldstein
  
• The psychology of group aggression
  
• John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK (2002)
  
  

[*]

• Hardaker, 2010
  
• C. Hardaker
  
• Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions
  
• Journal of Politeness Research, 6 (2) (2010), pp. 215–242
  
• CrossRef
   | 
  View Record in Scopus
   | 
  Citing articles (51)
  

[*]

• Hardaker, 2013
  
• C. Hardaker
  
• Uh…. not to be nitpicky, but the past tense of drag is dragged not drug: An overview of trolling strategies
  
• Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 1 (1) (2013), pp. 58–86
  
• CrossRef
   | 
  View Record in Scopus
   | 
  Citing articles (1)
  

[*]

• Herring et al., 2002
  
• S. Herring, K. Job-Sluder, R. Scheckler, S. Barab
  
• Searching for safety Online: Managing “trolling” in a feminist forum
  
• The Information Society, 18 (5) (2002), pp. 371–384 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01972240290108186
  
• CrossRef
   | 
  View Record in Scopus
   | 
  Citing articles (90)
  

[*]

• Hiltz and Wellman, 1997
  
• S. Roxanne Hiltz, B. Wellman
  
• Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual classroom
  
• Communications of the ACM, 40 (9) (1997), pp. 44–49 http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/260750.260764
  
• CrossRef
   | 
  View Record in Scopus
   | 
  Citing articles (284)
  

[*]

• Hine, 2000
  
• C. Hine
  
• Virtual ethnography
  
• SAGE, London (2000)
  
  

[*]

• Hornsey, 2008
  
• M.J. Hornsey
  
• Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical review
  
• Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2 (1) (2008), pp. 204–222 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00066.x
  
• CrossRef
   | 
  View Record in Scopus
   | 
  Citing articles (106)
  

[*]

• Johns et al., 2004
  
• M.D. Johns, S.-L. Chen, G. Jon Hall
  
• Online social research
  
• P. Lang, New York (2004)
  
  

[list=references]
[*]

• Kemp, 2016
  
• S. Kemp
  
• Digital in 2016: We are social’s compendium of global digital, social, and mobile data, trends and statistics
  
• (2016) January 27, 2016. Accessed 01.June.2016 http://wearesocial.com/uk/special-reports/digital-in-2016
  
  

[*]

• Kennedy, 2010
  
• J. Kennedy
  
• Don’t you forget about me
  
• Journalism Studies, 11 (2) (2010), pp. 225–242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616700903290635
  
• CrossRef
   | 
  View Record in Scopus
   | 
  Citing articles (5)
  

[*]

• Kozinets, 2010
  
• R.V. Kozinets
  
• Netnography: doing ethnographic research online
  
• SAGE Publications Ltd (2010)
  
  

[*]

• Lasseter et al., 2003
  
• A.E. Lasseter, K.P. Jacobi, R. Farley, L. Hensel
  
• Cadaver dog and handler team capabilities in the recovery of buried human remains in the southeastern United States
  
• Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48 (3) (2003), p. 2002296 http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/jfs2002296
  
  

[*]

• Lea et al., 2001
  
• M. Lea, R. Spears, D. de Groot
  
• Knowing me, knowing you: Anonymity effects on social identity processes within groups
  
• Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 (5) (2001), pp. 526–537 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167201275002
  
• CrossRef
   | 
  View Record in Scopus
   | 
  Citing articles (161)
  

[*]

• Leaver, 2013
  
• T. Leaver
  
• Olympic trolls: Mainstream memes and digital discord
  
• Fibreculture Journal, 1 (22) (2013), pp. 216–233
  
  

[*]

• Lorenzo-Dus et al., 2011
  
• N. Lorenzo-Dus, P. Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. Bou-Franch
  
• On-line polylogues and impoliteness: The case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reggaeton Youtube Video
  
• Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (10) (2011), pp. 2578–2593 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.03.005
  
• Article
   | 
  
  
•  PDF (342 K)
  

[/list]

 | 
View Record in Scopus
 | 
Citing articles (15)
[*]

• Luzón, 2014
  
• M.-J. Luzón
  
• Engaging in scientific controversies in science blogs: The expression of allegiance and ideological commitment
  
• H. Ling Lim, F. Sudweeks (Eds.), Innovative methods and technologies for Electronic discourse analysis (2014), pp. 235–259
  
• CrossRef
  

[*]

• Machado and Santos, 2009
  
• H. Machado, F. Santos
  
• The disappearance of Madeleine Mccann: Public drama and trial by media in the Portuguese press
  
• Crime Media Culture, 5 (2) (2009), pp. 146–167 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741659009335691
  
• CrossRef
   | 
  View Record in Scopus
   | 
  Citing articles (10)
  

[*]

• Mal and Parikh, 2011
  
• A. Mal, J. Parikh
  
• Facebook and the right to Privacy: Walking a tight rope
  
• NUJS Law Review, 4 (2) (2011), pp. 299–322
  
  

[*]

• Markham, 1998
  
• A.N. Markham
  
• Life online
  
• Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA (1998)
  
  

[*]

• Marwick, 2013
  
• A. Marwick
  
• Ethnographic and qualitative research on twitter
  
• K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess (Eds.), Twitter and society, Peter Lang, , New York (2013) Merja Mahrt, and Cornelius Puschmann
  
  

[*]

• Phillips, 2011
  
• W. Phillips
  
• Loling at tragedy: Facebook trolls, memorial pages and resistance to grief online
  
• First Monday, 16 (12) (2011) http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v16i12.3168
  
  

[*]

• Phillips, 2012
  
• W. Phillips
  
• What an academic who wrote her dissertation on trolls thinks of Violentacrez
  
• (2012) (Retrieved from)
  
  

[*]

• Phillips, 2013
  
• W. Phillips
  
• The house that fox built: Anonymous, spectacle and cycles of amplification
  
• Television and New Media, 14 (2013), pp. 494–509
  
• CrossRef
   | 
  View Record in Scopus
   | 
  Citing articles (9)
  

[*]

• Phillips, 2015
  
• W. Phillips
  
• This is why we can’t have nice things: Mapping the relationship between online trolling and mainstream culture
  
• MIT Press, Cambridge (2015)
  
  

[*]

• Rehling, 2012
  
• N. Rehling
  
• Touching everyone’: Media identifications, imagined communities, and new media technologies in the case of madeleine McCann
  
• R. Parkin-Gounelas (Ed.), The Psychology and Politics of the Collective: The Individual and the Mass, Routledge, New York (2012)
  
  

[*]

• Reicher et al., 1995
  
• S.D. Reicher, R. Spears, T. Postmes
  
• A social identity model of deindividuation phenomena
  
• W. Strobe, M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology, Wiley, UK (1995)
  
  

[*]

• de Seta, 2013
  
• Seta Gabriele de
  
• FCJ-167 Spraying, fishing, looking for trouble: The Chinese internet and a critical perspective on the concept of trolling
  
• Fibreculture Journal, 22 (2013), pp. 300–318
  
  

[*]

• Shachaf and Hara, 2010
  
• P. Shachaf, N. Hara
  
• Beyond vandalism: Wikipedia trolls
  
• Journal of Information Science, 36 (3) (2010), pp. 357–370 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165551510365390
  
• CrossRef
   | 
  View Record in Scopus
   | 
  Citing articles (32)
  

[*]
[list=references]
[*]

• Tajfel and Turner, 2001
  
• H. Tajfel, J. Turner
  
• An integrative theory of intergroup conflict
  
• M.A. Hogg, D. Abrams (Eds.), Intergroup relations: Essential readings, Psychology Press, New York (2001)
  
  

[*]

• Tepper, 1997
  
• M. Tepper
  
• Usenet communities and the cultural politics of information
  
• D. Porter (Ed.), Internet culture, Routledge, New York (1997)
  
  

[*]

• Turner, 1987
  
• J.C. Turner
  
• Rediscovering the social group
  
• B. Blackwell, Oxford, UK (1987)
  
  

[*]

• Warren, 2015
  
• C. Warren
  
• What the dog knows
  
• Touchstone a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc, New York (2015)
  
  

[*]

• Weisel and Böhm, 2015
  
• O. Weisel, R. Böhm
  
• ”Ingroup love“and “outgroup hate” in intergroup conflict between natural groups
  
• Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60 (2015), pp. 110–120
  
• Article
   | 
  
  
•  PDF (641 K)
  

[/list]

 | 
View Record in Scopus
 | 
Citing articles (8)

[*]

• Widyanto and Griffiths, 2011
  
• L. Widyanto, M. Griffiths
  
• An empirical study of problematic internet use and self-Esteem
  
• International Journal of Cyber Behavior Psychology and Learning, 1 (1) (2011), pp. 13–24 http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijcbpl.2011010102
  
• CrossRef
   | 
  View Record in Scopus
   | 
  Citing articles (9)
  

[*]

• Yardi and Boyd, 2010
  
• S. Yardi, D. Boyd
  
• Dynamic debates: An analysis of group polarization over time on twitter
  
• Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, 30 (5) (2010), pp. 316–327 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0270467610380011 http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/what-an-achademic-who-wroteher-dissertation-on-trolling-thinks-of-violentacrez/263631/
  
• CrossRef
  

Corresponding author.1
See Luzón (2014) for a breakdown of the coding scheme for Social and Anti-social indicators that have been used in the present study.

Sorry, had to split that up to get it into the boxes. 
Anyone know what the social media profiles the psychologists were using.
(That Nick Farrell can't tell the difference between 'psychiatrists' and 'psychologists' says a lot for his reliability).

loopzdaloop wrote:

The researcher, for instance, was told that they must be, “Thick as bricks. It’s so easy a child could work it out”.

and thanks to the medium of twitter, I've found the accounts that were referenced within that particular tweet.

@LittlemoreJB @TheJENReturns @Syn0nymph @AndriaCoulias @CarlaSpade Thick as bricks. It's so easy a child could work it out. #mccann

— ann-kristine (@fiorifan) July 4, 2015

and another tweet referenced within the journal article.

@fiorifan @AndriaCoulias  the psychology student,studying trolls she claimed.

— mary theresa (@marymartin104) July 4, 2015

The author put the account in her own name @andriacoulias and deleted it.
However, thanks to 'google cache' it might be interesting to view how 'neutral' @andriacoulias actually was.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ewmJDrsVotkJ:https://twitter.com/andriacoulias+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

The date the account was set up differs from what is reported. 
If people find a number of errors and ethical concerns in the article, it might be possible to get the journal to not publish the article after all. Especially as its not due for publication until later in the year. 

Sorry for the way the tweets have copy / pasted from google cache. I couldn't manage to get all 100 of them.

• TWEETS102
  
  
  
• FOLLOWING121
  
  
  
• FOLLOWERS18
  
  
  
• LIKES1
  
  
  
• 
   Follow
  
  
  

Andria Coulias

[ltr]@AndriaCoulias[/ltr]

 

[ltr]Joined February 2015[/ltr]



 

Tweets

• Tweets
   
  
  
• Tweets & replies
  
  

[list="stream-items js-navigable-stream"]
[*]
Andria Coulias ‏

[ltr]@AndriaCoulias[/ltr]

  5 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @NettyCox They just don't want to listen. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078300/ … More scienfitic evidence if you're interested!

0 replies0 retweets0 likes
Reply
 

 
Retweet
 

 

Like
 

 
More

[*]
Andria Coulias ‏

[ltr]@AndriaCoulias[/ltr]

  5 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @NettyCox I wouldn't bother, there's so much evidence showing that dog handlers beliefs influence dogs' identifications
0 replies0 retweets1 like
Reply
 

 
Retweet
 

 

Like
 
1
 
More

[*]
Andria Coulias ‏

[ltr]@AndriaCoulias[/ltr]

  4 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @Syn0nymph @CarlaSpade @fiorifan haha thank you
0 replies0 retweets0 likes
Reply
 

 
Retweet
 

 

Like
 

 
More

[*]
Andria Coulias ‏

[ltr]@AndriaCoulias[/ltr]

  4 Jul 2015
@nicholas_net @CarlaSpade I have been, its a journal article i've been referring too this whole time
0 replies0 retweets0 likes
Reply
 

 
Retweet
 

 

Like
 

 
More

[*]Andria Coulias followed Quinton Sanchez, Barbara and Father Jack

• 
  
  
   Follow
  Quinton Sanchez
  
  [ltr]@quintontsanchez[/ltr]
  
  
  
  
  [ltr]TV Guru. Entertainment Nerd. Team Beach Body.[/ltr]
  
  
   
  
  
• 
  
  
   Follow
  Barbara
  Protected Tweets
  
  [ltr]@19Barbara57[/ltr]
  
  
  
  
  [ltr]The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. JFK[/ltr]
  
  
  
  

[*]
Andria Coulias ‏

[ltr]@AndriaCoulias[/ltr]

  4 Jul 2015
@nicholas_net @CarlaSpade or two different individuals.
0 replies0 retweets0 likes
Reply
 

 
Retweet
 

 

Like
 

 
More

[*]
Andria Coulias ‏

[ltr]@AndriaCoulias[/ltr]

  4 Jul 2015
@nicholas_net @CarlaSpade and you dont think its a problem that these dogs sometimes cant distinguish between animal and human blood
0 replies0 retweets0 likes
Reply
 

 
Retweet
 

 

Like
 

 
More

[*]
Andria Coulias ‏

[ltr]@AndriaCoulias[/ltr]

  4 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @Syn0nymph @CarlaSpade @fiorifan particularly under certain conditions i.e high temperatures in the algarve
0 replies0 retweets0 likes
Reply
 

 
Retweet
 

 

Like
 

 
More

[*]
Andria Coulias ‏

[ltr]@AndriaCoulias[/ltr]

  4 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @CarlaSpade @fiorifan Me too I've been waiting for an answer for a while now
0 replies0 retweets0 likes
Reply
 

 
Retweet
 

 

Like
 

 
More

[*]
Andria Coulias ‏

[ltr]@AndriaCoulias[/ltr]

  4 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @CarlaSpade @fiorifan Thank you, likewise, only an open minded view such as yours can be truly unbiased
0 replies0 retweets0 likes
Reply
 

 
Retweet
 

 

Like
 

 
More

[*]
Andria Coulias ‏

[ltr]@AndriaCoulias[/ltr]

  4 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @CarlaSpade @fiorifan precisely!
0 replies0 retweets0 likes
Reply
 

 
Retweet
 

 

Like
 

 
More

[*]
Andria Coulias ‏

[ltr]@AndriaCoulias[/ltr]

  4 Jul 2015
@TheJENReturns @CarlaSpade @fiorifan their accuracy is determined by their handler or the presence of a body/blood or dna evidence
1 reply0 retweets0 likes
Reply
 
1
 
Retweet
 

 

Like
 

 
More

[*]
Andria Coulias ‏

[ltr]@AndriaCoulias[/ltr]

  4 Jul 2015
@nicholas_net @martin_liz @AdirenM @amsterdamkush if you actually readthe article the temperature is one of many factors
1 reply0 retweets0 likes
Reply
 
1
 
Retweet
 

 

Like
 

 
More

[*]
Andria Coulias ‏

[ltr]@AndriaCoulias[/ltr]

  4 Jul 2015
@amsterdamkush@martin_liz @AdirenM and you are just making incessant uncorroborated claims with no scientific backing
[/list]


(

Well done @ loopzdaloop and thank you very much for bringing us the full article for us to digest.

I am hoping that over the next few days many members here will take the trouble to read the full article and be willing to offer their thoughts on the thread about the many things that are obviously wrong with it. 

After that, and subject to what the forum-owner and Mods think should be done, I hope we will be able to submit a comprehensive response to it, to be sent to the 'science' magazine editors who propose to publish the article, and to the Heads of Department of those academic institutions that employ them. 

If, as appears to be the case, Andria Coulais does or did work in close contact with Dr Sharon Leal, the University of Portsmouth lecturer who pronounced her McCanns '100% innocent' in the ITV programme ('The Lying Game') on 7 January 2014, perhaps we might combine this with an enquiry to the academic board at Portsmouth University for a clear statement of the scientific basis on which Dr Leal made that statememt. This is matter of some importance given that an academic institution, professing expertise, felt able to declare the McCanns 'innocent. On what 'scientific' basis precisely?

Please make all comments polite, especially as am pretty sure at this thread will be watched by some of those being criticised..maybe it is already.

I would like to start the ball rolling with some observations on this particular paragraph:

QUOTE

The investigation into Madeleine’s abduction initially yielded few leads, with those that were pursued failing to generate further clues. The case, however, took a turn on the 31st July 2007 following reports of biological traces in the holiday apartment by two UK sniffer dogs (Machado & Santos, 2009). The outcome of this search was one of the main reasons the McCann’s came to be regarded as suspects, despite widely held concerns surrounding the reliability of cadaver dogs (Lasseter et al., 2003 and Warren, 2015). Nevertheless, Portuguese investigators stood by these identifications and despite the lack of corroborating evidence, put forth the theory that the McCanns had sedated Madeleine, causing her to die in a tragic accident, before attempting to conceal this fact by disposing of her body. Despite these allegations, the McCanns were never formally charged, and as such, are considered innocent.

UNQUOTE

Comments:

1. They make the claim that there are 'widely held concerns' surrounding the reliability of cadaver dogs. They then quote just two authors. Yet we know that here is a huge repository of empirical evidence - proof in facat - that in the hands of experienced dog handlers, cadaver dogs can achieve 100% success. Thus this statement/assumption in their report is FALSE and undermines all that follows.

2. They claim there is 'no corroborating evidence'.  This forum, many other websites, PeterMac's e-book and above all the PJ records and Goncalo Amaral's book 'The Truth of the Lie' show that this claim is also FALSE, and again undermines all that follows.

3. They claim the McCanns 'are considered innocent'. Even if that were true before the Portuguese Supreme Court decision last month, clearly it is not now. That claim is now also FALSE. It means that their article cannot possibly be put out as it is withot referencing the fact that the Supreme Court has made a definitive statement that the McCanns are 'NOT' cleared.

Even without the benefit of other comments that members hat CMOMM members may make on the article, i am clear that this article simply cannot be published in its current form in any reputable journal. 

Especially one that pretends to be 'scientific'.     
 


-

I love this site because of  posts like the ones above from LDL and TB.
Keep up the good work.   It seems to me that there are quite a few feathers being ruffled.

Love it and oh dear I am afraid I can't be cured because I will always love it and find it highly amusing when "academics"   are challenged about their "impartiality".

anti-mccann trolls cannot be cured - says it all to me.

plebgate wrote:I love this site because of  posts like the ones above from LDL and TB.
Keep up the good work.   It seems to me that there are quite a few feathers being ruffled.

Love it and oh dear I am afraid I can't be cured because I will always love it and find it highly amusing when "academics"   are challenged about their "impartiality".

anti-mccann trolls cannot be cured - says it all to me.

But they will be instantly cured when the McCanns go to trial.

Yeah you're right there GEG and no academic qualification needed.


I really cannot believe that quote - "antimccann trolls cannot be cured".   Can any other trolls be cured?

3.1. Ethnographic report

Initial observations of the McCann trolls took place over a six-week period, commencing at the end of May 2015 and concluding in mid-July 2015. Several observations were noted via field notes throughout this time. These revealed a number of basic patterns with respect to the way in which the trolls interacted with both one another and pro-McCann contributors. First, the insults and abuse levelled at both the McCann’s and pro-McCann users were constant, repetitive, and in clear violation of Twitter policies, though user accounts were rarely suspended

 

 

 

On reading the above extract, it left me completely speechless. Academics??? I’ve thrown slugs with more intellect over the garden fence. 

 I have been following this case, as many other members have , since the Mirror fourm days, and, yes, there have been SOME contributors who have grovelled in the gutter with some of the disgusting things they have come out with. HOWEVER, many of these contributors have been INFILTRATORS for the McCanns.

 

Moreover, just look at the research that has been done by members of this Forum; PeterMac, Hidio, Richard Hall, Tony, Joane, to name just a few. And notice ONE difference between these members and the so-called Pro Mccanns………..THEY ALL GIVE THEIR REAL NAMES!  Unlike the "Pro McCann who DENY who they are. 


Many of us who do NOT give out personal information, are only seeking the truth; the truth based on the FACTS. It doesn’t take an educated slug to know that the Tapas 9 have LIED, and lied through their teeth. A child has disappeared, and in all probabliity, is DEAD, and there is enough evidence to tell us that these 9 KNOW what happened.

But I digress. Going back to the extract, it states that “observations of the McCann trolls took place over a six-week period”  I haven’t had time to go through the complete article, but does it state on what sites these “trolls” were observed? I don’t visit any other forums or blogs that discuss the McCann saga, but I do occasionally read what is being posted “across the road”, and one cannot MISS the Twitter feed on the right-hand side of his forum, and from what I have read on this Twitter feed, the “”Pro Mccanns” are the worst culprits when it comes to disgusting insults., and I hope that Dr Amaral WILL go after these pieces of festering filth, when this circus is finally over.

 

A few observations from the extract:

 

The “trolls” and the “Pro-McCann contributors”.  Stands out a mile, doesn’t it? So if one is NOT “Pro Maccan” whatever that means, does it mean that anyone who has a differing view, BASED ON THE PJ FILES, for example, are “anti-McCann” and are therefore “trolls”? Also, take this sentence:

“First, the insults and abuse levelled at both the McCann’s and pro-McCann users were constant, repetitive, and in clear violation of Twitter policies, though user accounts were rarely suspended”

 

NOTHING said about the disgusting things that have been to the people who don’t buy into the lies and the McCann circus.

 

C’mon, this not the work of scholars. This is a biased article, with no objectivity, whatsoever.

sallypelt wrote:

3.1. Ethnographic report

Initial observations of the McCann trolls took place over a six-week period, commencing at the end of May 2015 and concluding in mid-July 2015. Several observations were noted via field notes throughout this time. These revealed a number of basic patterns with respect to the way in which the trolls interacted with both one another and pro-McCann contributors. First, the insults and abuse levelled at both the McCann’s and pro-McCann users were constant, repetitive, and in clear violation of Twitter policies, though user accounts were rarely suspended

 

 

 

On reading the above extract, it left me completely speechless. Academics??? I’ve thrown slugs with more intellect over the garden fence. 

 I have been following this case, as many other members have , since the Mirror fourm days, and, yes, there have been SOME contributors who have grovelled in the gutter with some of the disgusting things they have come out with. HOWEVER, many of these contributors have been INFILTRATORS for the McCanns.

 

Moreover, just look at the research that has been done by members of this Forum; PeterMac, Hidio, Richard Hall, Tony, Joane, to name just a few. And notice ONE difference between these members and the so-called Pro Mccanns………..THEY ALL GIVE THEIR REAL NAMES!  Unlike the "Pro McCann who DENY who they are. 


Many of us who do NOT give out personal information, are only seeking the truth; the truth based on the FACTS. It doesn’t take an educated slug to know that the Tapas 9 have LIED, and lied through their teeth. A child has disappeared, and in all probabliity, is DEAD, and there is enough evidence to tell us that these 9 KNOW what happened.

But I digress. Going back to the extract, it states that “observations of the McCann trolls took place over a six-week period”  I haven’t had time to go through the complete article, but does it state on what sites these “trolls” were observed? I don’t visit any other forums or blogs that discuss the McCann saga, but I do occasionally read what is being posted “across the road”, and one cannot MISS the Twitter feed on the right-hand side of his forum, and from what I have read on this Twitter feed, the “”Pro Mccanns” are the worst culprits when it comes to disgusting insults., and I hope that Dr Amaral WILL go after these pieces of festering filth, when this circus is finally over.

 

A few observations from the extract:

 

The “trolls” and the “Pro-McCann contributors”.  Stands out a mile, doesn’t it? So if one is NOT “Pro Maccan” whatever that means, does it mean that anyone who has a differing view, BASED ON THE PJ FILES, for example, are “anti-McCann” and are therefore “trolls”? Also, take this sentence:

“First, the insults and abuse levelled at both the McCann’s and pro-McCann users were constant, repetitive, and in clear violation of Twitter policies, though user accounts were rarely suspended”

 

NOTHING said about the disgusting things that have been to the people who don’t buy into the lies and the McCann circus.

 

C’mon, this not the work of scholars. This is a biased article, with no objectivity, whatsoever.

You've said it all, sallypelt.

 Despite these allegations, the McCanns were never formally charged, and as such, are considered innocent.

Suspects are innocent in law until proven guilty.

However... they are still suspects and not cleared.

I think the pseudo-scientists at Huddersfield University need to get their heads around that.

Some observations on the research, section by section.

Introduction.

Case of Sean Duffy, someone who actually directly mocked a murder victim. I understand they are using him as an example as one of the first people to be convicted for ‘trolling’ but why go into detail of the images he created, is it because it fits the preconceived image the researchers have of McCann ‘trolls' as cruelly mocking a missing girl?  Why have they not included the ‘trolls’ that threatened Women such as Mary Beard or Caroline Criado-Perez with rape and various things? Would this not give a more balanced picture of UK ‘trolls’?
Does this show bias right from the introduction?

"Despite the firmly established illegality of internet trolling within the UK”


   Where is the citation for this?  The government published new guide lines in 2016 for things such as posting ‘ grossly offensive images, revenge porn, doxxing and other ‘cyber crimes that ‘should’ result in prosecution. 
No-where can I see a specific law against ‘trolling’.
Why isn't there a glossary, explanation of the researchers definition of ‘Anti McCann, ‘Troll’ Trolling ?

1.1 The case of M. McCann  


"To put the research aim into context, it is first necessary to consider some of the events surrounding Madeleine’s abduction”
Bias, presuming there was an abduction as fact.


"The case, however, took a turn on the 31st July 2007 following reports of biological traces in the holiday apartment by two UK sniffer dogs (Machado & Santos, 2009)’
Not just reports, the dogs did find biological traces, documented in the police files.
The sniffer dogs that the researchers later ‘bait’ the trolls with, insisting they can’t smell anything in hot climates. The paper by Lasseter 2003 is research concerned with BURIED human remains but even so it states,

"The results from these trials showed that some cadaver dogs were able to locate skeletonized remains buried at a significant depth. Fresh and skeletonized remains were found equally by the cadaver dogs along with some caveats. Dog handlers affected the reliability of the cadaver dog results. Observations and videotape of the cadaver dogs during field trials showed that they were reliable in finding buried human remains.


 "Despite these allegations, the McCanns were never formally charged, and as such, are considered innocent”
Incorrect ‘Fact’.

1.4. the current Study
Still no definition of ‘McCann Trolls’ specifically

2.1 Procedure 
How is this at all impartial? again where is the researchers definition of ‘McCann Troll’, why are they relying in ‘Pro McCann’ people to define it for them?  

"particular attention was paid to the accounts of individuals who were accused of trolling by other users, as well as those named by various pro-McCann users, who essentially acted as informants’


2.2 Tweet sample

"A sample of 400 tweets …..was selected for analysis”  
How where these 400 tweets selected, on what criteria?

3.2 Cadaver Dog Discussion

" the researcher posted a tweet stating that cadaver dogs make false positive errors 10–20% of the time when working in hot temperatures”
So which Journal is this ? Why no reference. Is it the Lasseter paper from 2003 that says Dogs finding deeply buried bodies are ‘reliable’?


Antisocial Indicators 3.5.1. Group exclusion
"3.5.1.1. Personal attacks
Indicators of group exclusion were comprised mainly of the use of personal attacks, which featured heavily in the anti-McCann members’ interactions with the pro-McCann users at a rate of 47%. These personal attacks primarily involved the use of curse words and vitriolic language as demonstrated by the examples in Table 3”
Where are the ‘Pro’ attacks for balance? How much of their posting activity is in the form of personal attacks? How is it 100% of the 'Pro' remarks can be defined as 'not trolling'?


3.5.1.2. Disassociation from group


don’t both groups do this?

3.6  Social Indicators

sharing links to support theories…… don’t both groups do this?

3.8 Motherhood

"The anti-McCanns frequently referenced motherhood in order to construct themselves as paragons of good parenting, “
Define ‘good parenting’    …… Most people, 'trolls' or otherwise, would just consider not leaving your kids alone NORMAL parenting,

3.9 Justice  

"amidst thoroughly unfounded allegations that the McCanns themselves formed part of a paedophile ring.’

Incorrect, See the Gaspar statement, not TOTALLY unfounded is it?

4 Discussion 

"While attempts were made to gage a first-hand understanding of the anti-McCann users intentions, their proclivity to decline the invitation for an interview meant that all the behaviours identified as constituting trolling were based primarily on the perceptions of individuals who formed part of a community of users who regularly tweeted using the McCann hashtag, or, … …... the interpretation of the researcher.
         
 isn’t this a THE major Limitation rather than just a discussion point?  The researcher labelled people ‘Trolls’ from the start and were solely focussed on analysing one side of a discussion only as ‘trolling’ and wonders why no-one on the side they labelled ‘trolls’ would agree to an interview?  so basically the whole study is based around analysing one set of people based on biased identifications from the group that demonises them?

"trolling was preceded by a series of equally provocative and unsubstantiated news reports implicating the McCanns in Madeleine’s disappearance, “

So the ‘trolls’ are set off by the media? They don't have independent though processes?  …where’s the references to unsubstantiated stories? What about the huge majority of stories perpetuating the abduction story? How come they are not defined as influencing the 'Pros'?
 Media reports about the trolls fed the trolls?  Is that what the death of B. L . was?  I see no mention of her and the abusive messages she got by ‘Pro McCann Trolls”.    

At what point in this paper was any ‘damaging impact’ shown? This conclusion is based on something that isn't proven, measured or quantified at all in the 'study'.

And ‘we’ might establish ways to deal with them?  Are these researchers or the police?
Why again is it just the ‘Anti McCanns’ that impacted those ‘victimized'
Why are the researchers not aware, or including that ‘Pro McCann’ people can also be defined as ‘Trolls’?
Maybe she should be directed to the rape threats and warnings of ‘Death’ directed at Brenda Leyland.
There are other ‘Pro McCann’ people who have harassed others who post on this forum.

Tony Bennett wrote:Well done @ loopzdaloop and thank you very much for bringing us the full article for us to digest.

I am hoping that over the next few days many members here will take the trouble to read the full article and be willing to offer their thoughts on the thread about the many things that are obviously wrong with it. 

After that, and subject to what the forum-owner and Mods think should be done, I hope we will be able to submit a comprehensive response to it, to be sent to the 'science' magazine editors who propose to publish the article, and to the Heads of Department of those academic institutions that employ them. 

If, as appears to be the case, Andria Coulais does or did work in close contact with Dr Sharon Leal, the University of Portsmouth lecturer who pronounced her McCanns '100% innocent' in the ITV programme ('The Lying Game') on 7 January 2014, perhaps we might combine this with an enquiry to the academic board at Portsmouth University for a clear statement of the scientific basis on which Dr Leal made that statememt. This is matter of some importance given that an academic institution, professing expertise, felt able to declare the McCanns 'innocent. On what 'scientific' basis precisely?

Please make all comments polite, especially as am pretty sure at this thread will be watched by some of those being criticised..maybe it is already.

I would like to start the ball rolling with some observations on this particular paragraph:

QUOTE

The investigation into Madeleine’s abduction initially yielded few leads, with those that were pursued failing to generate further clues. The case, however, took a turn on the 31st July 2007 following reports of biological traces in the holiday apartment by two UK sniffer dogs (Machado & Santos, 2009). The outcome of this search was one of the main reasons the McCann’s came to be regarded as suspects, despite widely held concerns surrounding the reliability of cadaver dogs (Lasseter et al., 2003 and Warren, 2015). Nevertheless, Portuguese investigators stood by these identifications and despite the lack of corroborating evidence, put forth the theory that the McCanns had sedated Madeleine, causing her to die in a tragic accident, before attempting to conceal this fact by disposing of her body. Despite these allegations, the McCanns were never formally charged, and as such, are considered innocent.

UNQUOTE

Comments:

1. They make the claim that there are 'widely held concerns' surrounding the reliability of cadaver dogs. They then quote just two authors. Yet we know that here is a huge repository of empirical evidence - proof in facat - that in the hands of experienced dog handlers, cadaver dogs can achieve 100% success. Thus this statement/assumption in their report is FALSE and undermines all that follows.

2. They claim there is 'no corroborating evidence'.  This forum, many other websites, PeterMac's e-book and above all the PJ records and Goncalo Amaral's book 'The Truth of the Lie' show that this claim is also FALSE, and again undermines all that follows.

3. They claim the McCanns 'are considered innocent'. Even if that were true before the Portuguese Supreme Court decision last month, clearly it is not now. That claim is now also FALSE. It means that their article cannot possibly be put out as it is withot referencing the fact that the Supreme Court has made a definitive statement that the McCanns are 'NOT' cleared.

Even without the benefit of other comments that members hat CMOMM members may make on the article, i am clear that this article simply cannot be published in its current form in any reputable journal. 

Especially one that pretends to be 'scientific'.     
 


-

Yes it's a really good idea to highlight inaccuracies in the journal article and feed them back to the journal editorial team. It might give them pause when considering publishing it. The main editor has his own twitter account here (@matthieuguitton) https://www.journals.elsevier.com/computers-in-human-behavior/editorial-board

Another approach to challenge 'scientists' who seek to demonise members of online communities is a challenge on ethical grounds. The authors of that report claim to be doing 'ethnography', however the way they have gone about it appears to conflict with agreed ethical standards. Especially when it comes to 'transparency' as there was no good reason why the researcher couldn't have let everyone know openly on twitter that they were a student partaking in research. 

i.e. They should not normally deceive their subjects without good reason. Nor should they knowingly misrepresent (i.e., fabricate evidence, falsify, plagiarize), or attempt to prevent the reporting of misconduct, or obstruct the scientific/scholarly research of others.
 
Ethics in research here 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/other/hi/ethics-guide-ethnog-anthrop_en.pdf

Another key ethical issue includes: "doing good (beneficence), avoiding doing harm (non-malificence), and protecting the autonomy, wellbeing, safety and dignity of all research participants" - that the Uni of Huddersfield would have made them consider before submitting the research. 

When you look at the following quote from the conclusion

At an idiosyncratic level, a number of parallels were drawn between the comments made by some of the anti-McCann trolls and those made by the “hater troll” interviewed by Bishop (2013b), which were found to reflect the criteria for antisocial personality disorder as specified within the DSM-V. The continued exploration of the role of antisocial personality disorder in trolling behaviour may, therefore, represent a fruitful avenue for future research, particularly as it shares many of its characteristics with psychopathy (Cale & Lilienfield, 2002), which Buckels, Trapnell and Paulhus (2014) found to be strongly correlated with trolling. The notion of a relationship between trolling and antisocial personality disorder is further supported by the McCann trolls’ unwavering endorsement of the right to unfettered free speech and their profound resistance to authority, particularly where online censorship is concerned. 

We can put to one side the dispute about whether 'psychopathy' is a real 'disorder' - but for people who do believe it to be real - i.e. these researchers - it is unethical to diagnose people they haven't met. Psychopathy is meant to be pervasive across all settings, however they are casting aspersions on people based upon their discussion in one domain of their life - namely twitter use. It is stigmatising and does not meet the ethical principles of 'doing no harm' - because it is name calling and TROLLING. What's the difference between the researchers calling people 'psychopaths' or saying they have 'anti-social personality disorder' on twitter or a journal? - Its completely unacceptable. 


Likewise, from the twitter posts we did see from Andria she used sarcasm and belittling language (i.e. meeting the definition of trolling). Is that acceptable behaviour? 

Andria is merely a student helping to expand the research profile of John Synnott. 
As well as the journal, a complaint should certainly go to Synoott's university ethics committee. 
https://www.hud.ac.uk/sas/research/researchgovernanceandethics/
The chair is Professor Roger Phillips r.m.phillips@hud.ac.uk

The twitter account for the John Synott is 
@jplsynnott


The twitter account for the other author


Dr Maria Ioannou

[ltr]@DrMariaIoannou[/ltr]

-------------------

Request by Mods

Thank you @ sallypelt, ChippyM & loopzdaloop for three excellent contributions, especially the brilliant collection of serious flaws by ChippyM and the advice on how and where to complain by loopzdaloop.

The contrast between 'Anti-McCann trolls' and 'Pro-McCann contributors' reveals the researchers' bias all too clearly, yet is only one proof amongst many of their agenda. The entire article is plainly seriously flawed.

Nevertheless, in order to address the issue of the conduct of the pro-McCann tweeters in the relevant research period, May to July 2015, can anyone help please with details of any tweets by the pro-McCanns on the #McCann Twitter hashtag during this period, or tell us where we can find them? Or does anyone know which pro-McCanns were on the #McCann hashtag at this time please?

Apart from that, please keep the comments flowing; the forum will be making a response.

- Mods

It's unfortunate that the relevant research period dates from May to July 2015.  Had their project taken place in 2014 they would have seen that their

"McCann contributors" were up to all sorts of filth, tracking down McCann "tolls"

 

WARNING!!



Some of the posts below include some of the filthiest language I have yet come across on any blog or forum.


Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:20 pm



Robert Guest
1 hr
Much has been in news recently concerning Internet trolls and a "dossier" that the police are currently dealing with. However, I've come into possession of a raw data file from which the attached is an edited extraction. I can personally verify that everything in the extraction is perfectly authentic. What it shows is really quite THE most disgusting evidence of trolling i have seen from the people who claim the moral high ground. In it you will see names familiar to you all and it proves the following.
1. A conspiracy to cause another member of this forum real life distress and hardship.
2. An admission of faking profiles to "implicate", i.e incriminate other members. This alone brings the dossier that this group are responsible for collating into doubt as to its veracity.
3. An insane resolve to cause as much trouble as possible for anyone disagreeing with them, and the file ends with a threat of physical violence that must be disturbing to all.
To my certain knowledge, none of the targets of these lunatics has ever done anything to deserve their "attention"
For the avoidance of doubt, the "Pam" referred to is Pamela Gurney and the "Robert" is Robert Guest. Others involved are Sorcha MacPharlain, Kate Holt and Gwen James. There may well be others but they are not identifiable by name or at least were not involved in this particular action.
It is also known that this group are responsible for attempting ( and failing ) to have another member dismissed from their job. Remember, these are the people so vociferous in their support of the disgraceful "doorstepping" of Brenda Leyland which ended as we know with such tragic results. Such was the non existent sympathy, it bordered on celebration.
Sorcha MacSunday, 10 August 2014 at 12:02 UTC+01
yess please .... these woman are most defo sick ... i busted benson haha did u hear ?? stole pics from her kerryn account
Sorcha MacSunday, 10 August 2014 at 12:02 UTC+01
shes flipped and left facebook x
Gwen JamesSunday, 10 August 2014 at 12:02 UTC+01
yes lolol..too funny.
Gwen JamesSunday, 10 August 2014 at 12:02 UTC+01
reckon they have come from a 'my baby died and I'm angry' group somewhere..
**********************
Gwen JamesSunday, 10 August 2014 at 12:05 UTC+01
they are cunts and my war is on them dirty middens
Gwen JamesSunday, 10 August 2014 at 12:11 UTC+01
There is paedophiles in the group no doubt about it..that why I have left them all..that James Arthurnut is one too
Sorcha MacSunday, 10 August 2014 at 12:09 UTC+01
that's the mentality of these people
Sorcha MacSunday, 10 August 2014 at 12:14 UTC+01
download cchild porn ect x
Sorcha MacSunday, 10 August 2014 at 12:14 UTC+01
james is most defo a peado x
Gwen JamesSunday, 10 August 2014 at 17:47 UTC+01
all lost babbiess or kids or summit and hate kate for basically giving herss away
Gwen JamesSunday, 10 August 2014 at 17:48 UTC+01
what group are they all in..the circle i think..need to infiltrate that.
Sorcha MacSunday, 10 August 2014 at 17:49 UTC+01
mysteries
Gwen JamesSunday, 10 August 2014 at 17:49 UTC+01
i cant stand chris..im concerned about him
Gwen JamesSunday, 10 August 2014 at 17:54 UTC+01
he has all the troll cunts in there
********************************************
Kate BensonFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:45 UTC+01
Setting up that fake account using my photos! You have gone too far. Watch your back!
Kate HoltThursday, 7 August 2014 at 21:33 UTC+01
are you any good with messing about with pics? I think we should remove this woman's face somehow. maybe put a black cat's face
Sorcha MacThursday, 7 August 2014 at 21:34 UTC+01
Lolol yes face in a hole???
Sorcha MacThursday, 7 August 2014 at 21:35 UTC+01
I'll try now and send you the outcome
Sorcha MacThursday, 7 August 2014 at 21:45 UTC+01
I'm a ruthless bustard so I'll use hers x
Kate HoltThursday, 7 August 2014 at 21:45 UTC+01
a black cat similar to hers. that same kind of grey shadow colour
Kate HoltThursday, 7 August 2014 at 22:05 UTC+01
Na. make it so that she looks crazy for going on the attack
Kate HoltThursday, 7 August 2014 at 22:05 UTC+01
*claps hands with excitement*
Kate HoltThursday, 7 August 2014 at 22:06 UTC+01
if she asks where you got it, say it appeared on your facebook from some bestiality website!!! looool
Kate HoltThursday, 7 August 2014 at 23:31 UTC+01
I also snapped what I could make seen like a threatening comment against Pamela
Sorcha MacThursday, 7 August 2014 at 23:31 UTC+01
Does pam know I'm Catherine
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:31 UTC+01
she is worse than kate, I think
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:30 UTC+01
Sarah brings worst out in me I cannot stand her for it being the Internet I genuinely would love to knock her out I've never been in a fight in my life lol
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:31 UTC+01
its like she has no morals at all
***************************************************
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:38 UTC+01
It's amazes me how people by the book to read about genitals lol
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:38 UTC+01
Children's gentiles
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:39 UTC+01
they love imagining what a paedo might have done to her
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:39 UTC+01
i can hear them getting excited, tittilated
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:40 UTC+01
they will say they don't, they would be horrified
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:40 UTC+01
but they do
******************************************************
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:45 UTC+01
Guess who pm me
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:45 UTC+01
who? Hate?
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:47 UTC+01
We have her
"Kate Benson You fucking slut! You have gone too far this time - bitch! "
"Kate Benson Setting up that fake account using my photos! You have gone too far. "
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:48 UTC+01
Ahahahaha
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:48 UTC+01
Photos
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:48 UTC+01
Love it
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:48 UTC+01
Lmaoooo high fiveeeee
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:48 UTC+01
I am fucking dancin
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:48 UTC+01
Pams going to be loving it
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:48 UTC+01
Get in!!!!!
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:49 UTC+01
No ma fault she looks like a slapper draped about a car bonnet wanting pumped
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:49 UTC+01
Ahahahahaha
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:49 UTC+01
I am laughing so much
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:49 UTC+01
You did very good work.
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:51 UTC+01
She's jus asked why I did it
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:51 UTC+01
What is my problem
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:51 UTC+01
Block her
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:51 UTC+01
She will hate it
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:51 UTC+01
Do it now!!! Lol
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:51 UTC+01
She won't be able to cope
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:57 UTC+01
Vendetta! Ahahahaha
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 00:57 UTC+01
She is up and down like a proper schitzo. She was like that wih me
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 01:00 UTC+01
Send them to Pamela. Lol x
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 01:01 UTC+01
I will. She'll be so proud of us!! Lol
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 01:03 UTC+01
what happpened to her in life
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 01:04 UTC+01
to be as fuckin mental at her age
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 01:04 UTC+01
Definitely. She doesn't like people to know where she is from. We have broken her. She won't sleep tonight.
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 01:04 UTC+01
tried to pm pam earlier but grrr turned her pms off
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 01:04 UTC+01
Fist bump gal
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 01:28 UTC+01
Kates begging me
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 01:28 UTC+01
To close it down
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 01:28 UTC+01
Ahahahahaahahahahaha
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 01:29 UTC+01
She messed with the wrong pros
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 01:30 UTC+01
Sad old cow
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 01:30 UTC+01
I'm crying laughing
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 11:36 UTC+01
And off Kate has fukked x
Removed her account c
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 11:36 UTC+01
I can fake inboxes so easily was thinking about implicating Sarah for it lmso x
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 11:37 UTC+01
Pam is fucking delighted
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 11:38 UTC+01
Lmso what she saying to it x
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 11:39 UTC+01
Did pam notice when I first posted it was her picks lol x logged into Cathy and hate was very threatening lol x
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 11:39 UTC+01
Yes, she noticed. She thought it was me
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 11:40 UTC+01
That's from pam
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 11:40 UTC+01
Well done. Kerry is one sick and abusive woman. She pmd my hubby once screaming at him to go check on me and what I was doing! Cheeky moo. I did nothing apart fro defend the McCs and him against her calling him a gay because she'd seen this profile pic I am using now! She is very sad really and God knows what caused it but it has twisted her mind
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 11:42 UTC+01
More from pam
I was thinking about Kerryn D. There has to be more to her return to Australia from UK. She said she worked for 2 doctors so did they sack her I wonder. Did she leave under a All speculation of course but it interests me why she is so bitter and pms people with disgusting messages.
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 11:43 UTC+01
I think maybe she is an abused woman
Kate HoltFriday, 8 August 2014 at 11:43 UTC+01
Fucks dead bodies over the bonnet of a car
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 11:43 UTC+01
She says no idea why ppl have a vendetta
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 11:44 UTC+01
Hahaha
Sorcha MacSaturday, 9 August 2014 at 11:43 UTC+01
some arsehole reported me for having a fake account lol yer its her lol
********************************************
Kate HoltSaturday, 9 August 2014 at 01:23 UTC+01
sorcha, I think Kerryn Davies plays bowls. like crown green style. just fyi.
Sorcha MacSaturday, 9 August 2014 at 01:34 UTC+01
Hi just home bit pissed lol.what u Mean
Kate HoltSaturday, 9 August 2014 at 01:35 UTC+01
bit pissed myself. I mean, I think she plays crown green bowls. just a bit of information, it would freak her out if someone knew.
Sorcha MacSaturday, 9 August 2014 at 01:43 UTC+01
Ruin her I shall
Sorcha MacSaturday, 9 August 2014 at 01:44 UTC+01
I'll finish her
Sorcha MacSaturday, 9 August 2014 at 11:55 UTC+01
ahahaha and antis have fucked her off chris page
Sorcha MacSaturday, 9 August 2014 at 11:55 UTC+01
because of me lol x
Sorcha MacSaturday, 9 August 2014 at 11:58 UTC+01
shes threatning me with da police lmao x
Sorcha MacSaturday, 9 August 2014 at 12:00 UTC+01
shes flipped on chris and Louisa bahahah x
Kate HoltSaturday, 9 August 2014 at 12:37 UTC+01
she is a busted fish. high five!!
Sorcha MacSaturday, 9 August 2014 at 12:40 UTC+01
jus saying its a police matter now and going on and on for having me in there ... lol then she called chris thick lmao
Sorcha MacSaturday, 9 August 2014 at 12:40 UTC+01
now shes saying the pics aren't her
Sorcha MacSaturday, 9 August 2014 at 12:40 UTC+01
lmao
Sorcha MacSaturday, 9 August 2014 at 12:42 UTC+01
I posted about her antagonising people on ho hosby swearing at them and calling people stupid bitches then people wouldn't take the hump with her maybe if shed showed people a bit of respect
Sorcha MacSaturday, 9 August 2014 at 12:42 UTC+01
she saying they aren't her pics
Sorcha MacSaturday, 9 August 2014 at 12:43 UTC+01
clearly not eh lmaoo .... x
Kate HoltSaturday, 9 August 2014 at 12:43 UTC+01
I dont understand? what pictures? *innocent face*
Kate HoltSaturday, 9 August 2014 at 12:43 UTC+01
ahahahaha
Kate HoltSaturday, 9 August 2014 at 12:45 UTC+01
dried up old hag
Kate HoltSunday, 10 August 2014 at 15:05 UTC+01
I trust you Sorcha.
Sorcha MacSunday, 10 August 2014 at 15:09 UTC+01
i wouldn't say nothing anyway x
Kate HoltSunday, 10 August 2014 at 22:20 UTC+01
you have done amazing work
Kate HoltSunday, 10 August 2014 at 22:22 UTC+01
see if you can get her to post 4 vile posts against you all in a row without any input from you
Sorcha MacSunday, 10 August 2014 at 22:24 UTC+01
Lmao I.jus left a wee message send her loopy x
Kate HoltSunday, 10 August 2014 at 22:25 UTC+01
we do work well together
**************************************************
Sorcha MacSunday, 10 August 2014 at 22:57 UTC+01
Lucy is fuckin thick
Kate HoltSunday, 10 August 2014 at 22:56 UTC+01
not sure if this is more or less fun than getting benson
Kate HoltSunday, 10 August 2014 at 22:56 UTC+01
I am wetting myself laughing here
Kate HoltSunday, 10 August 2014 at 22:56 UTC+01
looooooollllll
Kate HoltMonday, 11 August 2014 at 21:43 UTC+01
she's up to somethin
Kate HoltMonday, 11 August 2014 at 21:43 UTC+01
she pm'd Pamela as Lauren
Kate HoltMonday, 11 August 2014 at 21:43 UTC+01
Benson
Kate HoltMonday, 11 August 2014 at 21:44 UTC+01
dunno what for. but I smell a rat
Sorcha MacMonday, 11 August 2014 at 21:44 UTC+01
and ill photoshop her topless and gettin fuckeed if need be
Kate HoltFriday, 15 August 2014 at 10:55 UTC+01
Let me try and form a cunning plan. We need to not be tempestuous, bide our time and plan. I want her humiliated and looking stupid with no come back at all on us. I've not worked out how yet though.
Sorcha MacFriday, 15 August 2014 at 11:53 UTC+01
I am going to make it my mission
Sorcha MacFriday, 15 August 2014 at 11:53 UTC+01
To ruin her
Kate HoltFriday, 15 August 2014 at 11:53 UTC+01
It's my mission too. Will help any way I can
Sorcha MacSaturday, 16 August 2014 at 11:12 UTC+01
i
faked that quickly on phone ... if i was on pc i could make it look propa real x
Kate HoltSaturday, 16 August 2014 at 11:11 UTC+01
The Lauren Denny Cunningham pms with Rita was amazing
Sorcha MacSaturday, 16 August 2014 at 11:09 UTC+01
i wouldnt say trouble maker im more of that lol x
Sorcha MacSaturday, 16 August 2014 at 11:24 UTC+01
i can fake a full facebook face
Sorcha MacSaturday, 16 August 2014 at 11:23 UTC+01
do you think Robert would like me to fake some pms ???
Sorcha MacSaturday, 16 August 2014 at 11:24 UTC+01
he tells me what I should write
Sorcha MacSaturday, 16 August 2014 at 11:24 UTC+01
for him
Sorcha MacSaturday, 16 August 2014 at 11:24 UTC+01
page lol so it looks real as fuck
Sorcha MacSaturday, 16 August 2014 at 11:24 UTC+01
then he can use it against llizzy and co heheheheh
Sorcha MacSaturday, 16 August 2014 at 11:26 UTC+01
ill build up an example now lol x
Sorcha MacSaturday, 16 August 2014 at 11:26 UTC+01
could make lizzy seem like a keen ole filthy mare haha
Kate HoltSaturday, 16 August 2014 at 11:26 UTC+01
Never speak of this to anyone else!!!!
Kate HoltSaturday, 16 August 2014 at 11:36 UTC+01
I'm actually glad to have been booted for such a righteous reason!! Trying to disrupt the regime. I love it
******************************************************************************
Jason MillsFriday, 8 August 2014 at 15:37 UTC+01
I wouldn't let these people get to you Hun. You're better than that
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 15:38 UTC+01
yea im grand sarah loves cocks trna blacken my name with her mentalness
Sorcha MacFriday, 8 August 2014 at 15:38 UTC+01
i wanna slash her





Here is the link to the above thread, for those who have the stomach to read it.


https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10424-the-really-worst-hater-of-all-pamela-gurney-exposed?highlight=pam+gurney+worst

"CPS to prosecute 'trolls' who use fake online profiles

• 3 March 2016  BBC news
  

Online abuse is cowardly and can be deeply upsetting to the victim."
Fake accounts and websites can be used by those posing as their victims to post embarrassing messages or pictures.
This "may amount to an offence, such as grossly offensive communication or harassment", the CPS said.Lawyers will be advised to prosecute "trolls" who use fake online profiles to harass others, under guidelines being proposed in England and Wales.
The Crown Prosecution Service says adults should be charged if, for example, they make a profile in the name of a victim with fake information which could damage their reputation.
The guidelines also include advice on new crimes such as revenge pornography.
The CPS guidelines advise prosecutors on how to interpret existing laws. 
A six-week consultation on the proposed changes has now started.

'Deeply upsetting'

"It is vital that prosecutors consider the bigger picture when looking at evidence and examine both the online and offline behaviour pattern of the defendant," said director of public prosecutions Alison Saunders"

 


The researchers talked about how WE should deal with trolls and how the 'McCann Trolls' caused harm and damage .  Here's the CPS stating that what those "pro" people did in Mirage's post, creating fake accounts with presumably obscene doctored photos should be prosecuted. So what is claimed in the conclusion is actually being carried out by the people they identified as not being 'trolls'. Great research!

Why not include the filth that was posted on twitter in 2014 from "pro" posters?

Perhaps what we are seeing is the public being"Manipulated,incited"to show angst against the parents of Madeleine,via Twitter,Facebook,castigating themselves as"Trolls,then they will find the full use of Police Investigatory powers by the Governments forces to bring in prosecutions of hate mail directed towards Kate and Gerry McCann-unfair Trail by the media?
Please do not become embroiled in any incitement methods becoming directed to the afore mentioned parties and hope that"Justice"Can prevail for Madeleine McCann for any guilty parties involved with her disappearance.

The article 'Internet trolls cannot be cured' has taken on a more sinister turn since I posted it up on the OP just two says ago.

Because this morning I've found out that a write-up of this appallingly biased and seriously flawed article has appeared in the prestige scientific journal Nature.

For those not familiar with the popularisation of current science topics in the scientific media, the two top journals are Nature and Scientific American. They are like the Times and Daily Telegraph of the scientific world. Any article that appears in Nature will commonly be written up or featured in the mainstream TV and print media. They are the 'mainstream media' of the scientific establishment.

All the more reason to challenge this article.

Here are a few extracts:

------------------

The dark side of social media

Psychologists find that Internet trolls seem impervious to any efforts to change their behaviour.

15 February 2017

http://www.nature.com/news/the-dark-side-of-social-media-1.21478

This May, it will be a full ten years since the abduction of three-year-old Madeleine McCann from her family’s holiday villa in Portugal and the worldwide coverage that followed. Yet, a decade later, people on the Internet still swap 100 messages or so an hour about the case. Many of these accuse and insult her traumatized parents, celebrating their daughter’s disappearance and gloating over their misery.

Such people are among the basest and most antisocial Internet trolls, and in a paper in Computers in Human Behaviour, psychologists describe how they tried to engage with this troll community, to study their attitudes and behaviour, and to work out what makes them tick (J. Synnott et al. Comput. Hum. Behav. 71, 70–78; 2017). Their research put them in the cross-hairs for several weeks, and the trolls did not disappoint. Once the goal of their study was exposed by others in the anti-McCann community, “you need better English to do a PHD luv!” was among the more polite messages sent in response to questions from “the psychology student studying trolls”.

Things got heated when the scientists tried to introduce some science into the debate. Much of the suspicion towards the McCann family was generated by a claim from the Portuguese police that sniffer dogs had found evidence of a cadaver in their holiday apartment (no charges were brought). When one of the psychologists posted a reference to an academic paper showing that such dogs made frequent mistakes in hot weather, and invited discussion, the trolls were more interested in insults and attacks on the researcher’s motive, labelling them a “shill” and blocking them when they tried to steer conversations back to the findings.



-

They appear to have now omitted the word "tracking". This was the original.

The comments became even more toxic when the scientists tried to introduce some science into the debate. One of the psychologists posted a reference to an academic paper showing that tracking dogs might have made mistakes in finding a body because of the hot weather.

I found the academic paper that referenced tracking dogs and it had no bearing at all - none whatsoever on the work of Eddie and Keela.

What it said was that dogs could sometimes fail to pick up scent in hot weather. No surprise.

What it didn't say was the failure rate after having indicated.

They completely used an academic paper out of context. 

This is not science, it's deception.

Did they define hot weather? Temperature ranges? Indoors? Outdoors?

Nope.

It was bollocks.

The Sun, Tracey Kandohla, might like to write a piece on this explosive revelation - they could interview someone who claims to be a McCann sceptic, with extensive experience on social media, who enjoys exchanging vitriolic rants with like minded reptiles.  It is after all the likes of these people that generate a global categorization of McCann sceptics as 'trolls'.

There must be someone out there willing for a shilling....

When they say scientific study, how scientific is it? 


It appears to be centred around the McCanns "theory"? And slamming those who do not believe in that "theory" and dissing the dogs. 
Admittedly I only scanned it.

Another thing from the full article:

The outcome of this search was one of the main reasons the McCann’s came to be regarded as suspects, despite widely held concerns surrounding the reliability of cadaver dogs (Lasseter et al., 2003 and Warren, 2015).

If you find the abstract of the Lasseter paper it says this:

Fresh and skeletonized remains were found equally by the cadaver dogs along with some caveats. Dog handlers affected the reliability of the cadaver dog results. Observations and videotape of the cadaver dogs during field trials showed that they were reliable in finding buried human remains.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12762533

Eddie and Keela would each need to be wrong six/seven times in a row in a number of different locations, indoors, in a number of ambient temperatures - TO THE EXCLUSION OF OTHER NON-MCCANN locations.

The people who wrote the Huddersfield Uni paper are not interested in science. They are waving the word "science" and hoping people don't look closely at what they are saying.

I notice they didn't mention the McCann trolls hounding to death Brenda Leyland.

This case scares me.

The McCanns must think think Eddie and Keela are exceptional dogs.



Exceptional because it it quite an (unheard of) achievement for these dogs to give false indications for all of the following items/locations:

1 Cadaver dog ALERTING behind sofa (McCANN'S apartment)
2 Blood dog ALERTING behind sofa (McCANN'S apartment)
3 Matter FOUND behind sofa containing DNA (McCANN'S apartment)
4 DNA re 3 ALL FIVE MARKERS found are 100% COMPATIBLE with MADDIE'S DNA profile
5 Cadaver dog ALERTING to hired car (McCANN'S hire car)
6 Blood dog ALERTING to hired car (McCANN'S hire car)
7 Matter FOUND in hired car containing DNA (McCANN'S hire car)
8 DNA re 7 FIFTEEN OF THE MARKERS are 100% compatible with MADDIE'S DNA profile (McCANN'S hire car)
9 Cadaver dog ALERTING in PARENT'S bedroom near wardrobe (McCANN'S apartment)
10 Cadaver dog ALERTING in flowerbed (McCANN'S apartment)
11 Cadaver dog ALERTING on McCANNS car key (McCANN'S hire car)
12 Cadaver dog ALERTING at WHITE TOP belonging to MOTHER (McCANN'S clothes)
13 Cadaver dog ALERTING at CHECKED trousers of MOTHER (McCANN'S clothes)
14 Cadaver dog ALERTING at RED T-SHIRT with PLANES MOTIF (McCANN'S clothes)
15 Cadaver dog ALERTING at CUDDLE CAT (MADDIE'S toy she was never seen with)
16 Blood dog ALERTING to car key (McCANN'S hire car)
17 Neither CADAVER dog nor BLOOD dog ALERTING at ANY OTHER APARTMENT or CAR

They also didn't indicate anything in apartments 5D, H5, 4G.
They also didn't indicate any other car in the car compound.

Yes they must think these dogs are exceptional.

I think the odds of false indications so many times in a row are astronomical.
Even the worse dogs in academic research give 9% false indication rate and a 75% positive indication rate - that's the worse!, 
The best give 0% false indications.

Exceptional.

BlueBag wrote:They appear to have now omitted the word "tracking". This was the original.

The comments became even more toxic when the scientists tried to introduce some science into the debate. One of the psychologists posted a reference to an academic paper showing that tracking dogs might have made mistakes in finding a body because of the hot weather.

I found the academic paper that referenced tracking dogs and it had no bearing at all - none whatsoever on the work of Eddie and Keela.

What it said was that dogs could sometimes fail to pick up scent in hot weather. No surprise.

What it didn't say was the failure rate after having indicated.

They completely used an academic paper out of context. 

This is not science, it's deception.

Did they define hot weather? Temperature ranges? Indoors? Outdoors?

Nope.

It was bollocks.

Well done and thanku BlueBag, for taking the trouble to look up the actual paper. As we probably all expected, utter spin yet again. I, for one, just dont have the time to look up every detail, thats obv exactly what they expect to happen, no one to bothering chasing up the facts.

And thankyou fr last week making me look bk into the micro chipping thing, you were right, in the last ten yrs it hasnt really advanced, but fingers crossed it doesnt!
Sorry off topic, i think!

GoGetEm- scares me too! X

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I notice they didn't mention the McCann trolls hounding to death Brenda Leyland.

This case scares me.

This "case" has more connotations and connections than first believed in my opinion. 

RIP Brenda Leyland