Social Media caused the suicide of a politician?

Scofflaw

leggo wrote: »

Agreed, having a rational argument means nothing in places like this if you're against a majority with time on their hands. It's like pissing in the wind. I mean if you think in the context of a moderator in an actual debate, that simply wouldn't happen.

BUT you'd need hundreds of people available 24/7 to do it properly. And, to be fair, boards is more often than not better than most places for moderation standards (because it's so high profile in Ireland and has to be).

The reasons for not doing things that way are actually more fundamental than logistical difficulties. The kind of "moderated discussion" that's suggested is fundamentally a product intended for audience consumption, and the job of the moderator is to allow all points of view to be presented equally, without allowing one of them to dominate. Where there is audience participation, the moderator tries to seek out points of view or questions that have not yet been addressed.

Discussion forums, on the other hand, are not intended for audience-consumption, but for participation. That means that the moderators do not attempt to restrict the level of expression of any particular point of view, because the aim is not that the arguments be presented equally, but that all of the participants are treated equally.

In the first case, if people #1-#99 are of view A, and person #100 is of view B, the moderator will still aim to present in such a way that A = B, even though that means people #2-#99 have to be excluded.

In the second, if 100 people are of view A, and 1 is of view B, then there will be 100 posts representing view A and 1 post representing view B, because on a discussion forum we don't try to set A = B, but to ensure that people #1 - #100 all get a chance to post.

Having said all that, we could actually run discussion threads in an A = B way, by only allowing an equal number of posters to post on each side, but it would have logistical implications, because there's no technical way of controlling access at that level as far as I know (the Logos forum does this, but you'd really want it in the appropriate forum). I will ask, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

leggo

Great post and cheers for the explainer. To be honest, I don't think you need to as, you're right, if it's a majority opinion then boards' role would be to reflect that.

One small qualm I'd have is that those arguing against the consensus tend to be mobbed and overwhelmed - shouted down more than anything else - and I feel that moderators could go some way further to ensuring that they are given the protection to freely argue their point without being badgered. And to also ensure that there is an environment where people aren't discouraged from posting against the grain because of this; so it could actually reflect public opinion and not just the consensus of one vocal side of the argument (say, for example, this board was almost unanimously anti-FG to the point that anyone who dared defend them was shouted down...but opinion polls showed 50% approval rating of the party. Obviously those who do approve of them simply don't feel as if they can say so, and that fault ultimately has to lie with the mods as public opinion isn't then being reflected. That's just an theoretical example, though, I'm not saying that it's the case).

But that's not a boards-specific problem, it's the nature of message boards in general. And, like I said, boards are quite good at doing their best on the issue...more often than not.

tayto lover

The moderators should have first changed the title of this thread as it's simply not true. A simple question-mark would have sufficed.

liammur

leggo wrote: »

Great post and cheers for the explainer. To be honest, I don't think you need to as, you're right, if it's a majority opinion then boards' role would be to reflect that.

One small qualm I'd have is that those arguing against the consensus tend to be mobbed and overwhelmed - shouted down more than anything else - and I feel that moderators could go some way further to ensuring that they are given the protection to freely argue their point without being badgered. And to also ensure that there is an environment where people aren't discouraged from posting against the grain because of this; so it could actually reflect public opinion and not just the consensus of one vocal side of the argument (say, for example, this board was almost unanimously anti-FG to the point that anyone who dared defend them was shouted down...but opinion polls showed 50% approval rating of the party. Obviously those who do approve of them simply don't feel as if they can say so, and that fault ultimately has to lie with the mods as public opinion isn't then being reflected. That's just an theoretical example, though, I'm not saying that it's the case).

But that's not a boards-specific problem, it's the nature of message boards in general. And, like I said, boards are quite good at doing their best on the issue...more often than not.

I think boards.ie is a great forum and the vast majority of Mods are on the ball. I recently got banned from the rugby forum for explaining something to a poster who was calling my posts rubbish! They can attack your posts, but not you. I don't see much of a difference. This is where it fails imo. Someone can incorrectly discount what you say, and at the same time you have to be extremely careful. Seeing as I'm off on a bit of a tangent, take the opportunity to wish everyone on boards a happy new year.

Scofflaw

leggo wrote: »

Great post and cheers for the explainer. To be honest, I don't think you need to as, you're right, if it's a majority opinion then boards' role would be to reflect that.

One small qualm I'd have is that those arguing against the consensus tend to be mobbed and overwhelmed - shouted down more than anything else - and I feel that moderators could go some way further to ensuring that they are given the protection to freely argue their point without being badgered. And to also ensure that there is an environment where people aren't discouraged from posting against the grain because of this; so it could actually reflect public opinion and not just the consensus of one vocal side of the argument (say, for example, this board was almost unanimously anti-FG to the point that anyone who dared defend them was shouted down...but opinion polls showed 50% approval rating of the party. Obviously those who do approve of them simply don't feel as if they can say so, and that fault ultimately has to lie with the mods as public opinion isn't then being reflected. That's just an theoretical example, though, I'm not saying that it's the case).

But that's not a boards-specific problem, it's the nature of message boards in general. And, like I said, boards are quite good at doing their best on the issue...more often than not.

Sure - there's a limit to what we can do, obviously. For a start, arguing against the consensus is hard - psychologically difficult and wearing - in any social milieu, which reflects the fact that we're social animals. And the online consensus may well not reflect the general public consensus, although boards is not too bad from that point of view.

So minority points of view online may not be reflective of real public opinion, and, as you say, we may not hear from some points of view because the holders of those points of view simply can't bring themselves to struggle against the online consensus.

On the other hand, that reflects society at large. For example, I didn't ever accept the view that Fianna Fáil were 'finished' after the last election - it seemed far more likely that long-term Fianna Fáil voters were temporarily too embarrassed to express their support, but that as time went by the embarrassment would fade, while the support would remain - and that seems to be the case. So social suppression of an unpopular viewpoint is, I think, not in any sense simply an online/forum issue - the pro-Fianna Fáil views were there, but were not expressed, for reasons that run deeper than anything related to the forum.

So while we do try to prevent posters with unpopular opinions being mobbed, and certainly there are rules in place against their being personally attacked, there's not much we can, or should, do to disguise the fact that their opinions are unpopular, and that unpopularity in itself is often sufficient to put people off airing those opinions.

Coming back to the OP issue, I would say that the potential for hostile social media (in the broadest sense) to be a factor in suicides is obviously high, just as any social pressure is, and just as any media pressure is. But, again, it's possible to argue that what is needed for people in the public eye, and likely to experience such pressure, is not legislation that disguises publicly expressed opinion from the potential victims of it, but better identification of at-risk individuals, better identification of risk situations, better training, and better support systems.

cordially,
Scofflaw

leggo

Yeah, while I recognise and agree with what you've said, at the same time I'd feel that social dynamics often lead the majority in a given context towards the same opinion, and allowing that opinion to go largely unchallenged hardens people's stance (i.e. that their opinion is now fact because it's so constantly validated). For example: taxi drivers solving the world's problems every day while talking at the rank. They might be misguided or simply wrong in some cases; but they'll have a hardened sense of righteousness with each passing day.

In a boards context: I'm sure the politics forum, like all, has its own regulars that would set the agenda and consensus to some degree. I feel the mods' job should be to ensure an inclusiveness and diversity of opinions. That would benefit the forum as much as the users, as that disagreement and constructive discussion (or lack thereof) is what makes or breaks forums. It wouldn't require mods to come in swinging their banhammer every time a disagreement occurs, just politely overseeing the conversation and guiding it towards an entertaining and constructive end to reflect both sides and discourage mob rule (which achieves nothing, ultimately, especially if it's not indicative of actual public opinion and of just said forum regulars/taxi drivers at the rank). Kind of like how a radio/television host would handle a debate, more than an officially appointed moderator in a very strictly-guidelined debate*. The politics forum should aspire to be more Pat Kenny than Adrian Kennedy, for example (and I only say that because we're here; not because this needs to be addressed urgently).

I recognise that's a catch-22, though, because you also need to keep said regulars happy in order to achieve the sense of community that makes or breaks forums as much as lively debate. And mods are also voluntary, which brings about two problems in that: they may have the time to achieve the above adequately OR be particularly willing to do so if the unpopular opinion doesn't reflect theirs.

Anyway, not the most pressing issue, just an interesting conversation that we've drifted into. Like I said, boards is by no means the worst offender on this. It's probably closer to achieving that goal than anything. This is just the nature of message boards in general and probably not going to change anytime soon.

*What irks me, in particular, is that if I make a well thought out post that goes against the consensus, then I may check the thread again later that day and have 5,000 words of rebuttal echoing the same point to wade through - since evolving into mild, personal attacks - and I have to face either writing 5,000 words in response or being alienated from the conversation altogether despite my point still being no less valid. Think of how a radio host would say, "Okay, let him actually answer the question..." in that instance, or politely develop the discussion so it doesn't stagnate the entire thread while waiting for one reply.

Bichon Lover

Presumably there will be an inquest.
Will that reveal anything new?

tayto lover

Bichon Lover wrote: »

Presumably there will be an inquest.
Will that reveal anything new?

Only the cause of death as far as I know.

Bichon Lover

tayto lover wrote: »

Only the cause of death as far as I know.

Yes, unless he left a note/letter.

Slideshowbob

tayto lover wrote: »

Only the cause of death as far as I know.

Could what was said against him in text / social media be part of it?


“People have to be made accountable for what they are saying,” say Tom Hayes. Yet we have collective cabinet responsibility ?!?

liammur

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure - there's a limit to what we can do, obviously. For a start, arguing against the consensus is hard - psychologically difficult and wearing - in any social milieu, which reflects the fact that we're social animals. And the online consensus may well not reflect the general public consensus, although boards is not too bad from that point of view.

So minority points of view online may not be reflective of real public opinion, and, as you say, we may not hear from some points of view because the holders of those points of view simply can't bring themselves to struggle against the online consensus.

On the other hand, that reflects society at large. For example, I didn't ever accept the view that Fianna Fáil were 'finished' after the last election - it seemed far more likely that long-term Fianna Fáil voters were temporarily too embarrassed to express their support, but that as time went by the embarrassment would fade, while the support would remain - and that seems to be the case. So social suppression of an unpopular viewpoint is, I think, not in any sense simply an online/forum issue - the pro-Fianna Fáil views were there, but were not expressed, for reasons that run deeper than anything related to the forum.

So while we do try to prevent posters with unpopular opinions being mobbed, and certainly there are rules in place against their being personally attacked, there's not much we can, or should, do to disguise the fact that their opinions are unpopular, and that unpopularity in itself is often sufficient to put people off airing those opinions.

Coming back to the OP issue, I would say that the potential for hostile social media (in the broadest sense) to be a factor in suicides is obviously high, just as any social pressure is, and just as any media pressure is. But, again, it's possible to argue that what is needed for people in the public eye, and likely to experience such pressure, is not legislation that disguises publicly expressed opinion from the potential victims of it, but better identification of at-risk individuals, better identification of risk situations, better training, and better support systems.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So true.
I would also argue that we need individuals like yourself in important positions, as many that have them aren't fit to run a chip shop imo.

Offy

Are most suicides not related to childhood issues? If that be the case then FG must have a hidden adgenda as the internet wasnt around when this TD was a child.

liammur

Offy wrote: »

Are most suicides not related to childhood issues? If that be the case then FG must have a hidden adgenda as the internet wasnt around when this TD was a child.

To be honest I think it's a complex subject that most of us here probably don't understand, punters just speculating.

Bichon Lover

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Could what was said against him in text / social media be part of it?


“People have to be made accountable for what they are saying,” say Tom Hayes. Yet we have collective cabinet responsibility ?!?

Is this the Tom Hayes whose main concern is re-opening the buffet at Clonmel railway station? Glad to know that such a formidable intellect is heading up this investigation!!

tayto lover

Bichon Lover wrote: »

Is this the Tom Hayes whose main concern is re-opening the buffet at Clonmel railway station? Glad to know that such a formidable intellect is heading up this investigation!!

You might be in trouble for that :pac:

Can anyone honestly see anyone being jailed for stating that they think the Govt or minister is corrupt, only looking after themselves/cronies and are ruining the country? There would be an uprising.
That is what people on most social media sites have been saying.

Slideshowbob

How do you determine if a TD is acting in his own interests for personal gain? In interests of constituents to get elected next time? Or in the national interest?

Surely the later should be what it's all about?

tayto lover

Slideshowbob wrote: »

How do you determine if a TD is acting in his own interests for personal gain? In interests of constituents to get elected next time? Or in the national interest?

Surely the later should be what it's all about?

If that's addressed to my last post I was inventing a situation pertaining to the regular type of comment on these boards. It would be hard to fight either side in front of a jury though. There are plenty of examples to support each side.

irishpancake

dvpower wrote: »

He did get take a lot of abuse online and that factor was identified by his brother. I somehow doubt that is was the reason for his suicide, but I can see why there is speculation about it.

I don't know why you would raise any of the other reasons you list - seems very unfair.

He did get take a lot of abuse online

Where was that??

Can you point it out, or link it?? What sites?? What forums or discussion groups??

Who said what about him which could be construed as abuse, and could not be construed as legitimate criticism and comment??

that factor was identified by his brother

What did his brother say which identified the on-line source for this so-called abuse??

TomOnBoard

The continued existence of this thread is pathetic and not only allows, but actually invites, all kinds of irrelevant and ill-considered commentary to be placed irrevocably on the internet, thereby adding further to this family's grief.

Among other things I have said in this thread, I have suggested to moderator that it should be closed down ( resulting in a Moderator warning being sent to me privately for so-called back-seat moderation).

I cannot see how further commentary (whether well- reasoned or simply bull****) can add anything further. However, I can see how continued postings by the ill-informed can add further to family grief. THIS SHOULD NOT BE FACILITATED!

I await another warning or possibly an expulsion notice from Moderator. So be it!

Scofflaw

TomOnBoard wrote: »

The continued existence of this thread is pathetic and not only allows, but actually invites, all kinds of irrelevant and ill-considered commentary to be placed irrevocably on the internet, thereby adding further to this family's grief.

Among other things I have said in this thread, I have suggested to moderator that it should be closed down ( resulting in a Moderator warning being sent to me privately for so-called back-seat moderation).

I cannot see how further commentary (whether well- reasoned or simply bull****) can add anything further. However, I can see how continued postings by the ill-informed can add further to family grief. THIS SHOULD NOT BE FACILITATED!

I await another warning or possibly an expulsion notice from Moderator. So be it!

Your sentiments are noted, but social media users are in effect "the accused" in this case, which produces an obvious right to reply.

Please do not engage in further backseat moderation or argument with moderation in the thread - all such complaints should be by PM to mods to avoid disruption, as per the standard Boards.ie rules.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Chips Lovell

tayto lover wrote: »

Can anyone honestly see anyone being jailed for stating that they think the Govt or minister is corrupt.

Nobody is jailed for libel. It's a civil matter.

tayto lover

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Nobody is jailed for libel. It's a civil matter.

Thanks for that.
I think it would be hard to prove unless someone is mentioned by name as being a criminal, cheat or involved in dodgy affairs. Most of the comments on Boards that I have seen e.g. the Phil Hogan picture with his secretary could be construed either way depending on which side of the argument you are on. If I was seen in a pub with my arm around a woman who is not my wife I would be leaving myself open to views of that nature too and could expect adverse comments especially if I was a public figure.

spikethedog

When is Eamon Gilmore going to stand outside the dail and accuse MaryLou McDonald of burying bodies all over Ireland?
When is he going to admit his involvement with the OIRA in the early 1970's?

JustinDee

Offy wrote: »

Are most suicides not related to childhood issues?

No. It is far more complex an area of psychology than a generalist's approach of "childhood issues".
There are many factors involved in the state of mind where an individual chooses to go ahead beyond suicidal thoughts and take the ultimate step to kill themselves. Amongst these are illnesses, situations or episodes which occur in adulthood. Then there is the congenital element to consider also.

michael999999

spikethedog wrote: »

When is Eamon Gilmore going to stand outside the dail and accuse MaryLou McDonald of burying bodies all over Ireland?
When is he going to admit his involvement with the OIRA in the early 1970's?

Never, and neither will the other sheep Enda!

oscarBravo

michael999999 wrote: »

Never, and neither will the other sheep Enda!

Enda was involved with the OIRA?

Slideshowbob

I've created a wider discussion on the topic of online anonymity in Ireland in the Philosophy forum.

Please feel free to view and discuss there.

Link:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82457482#post82457482

TomOnBoard

Scofflaw wrote: »

Your sentiments are noted, but social media users are in effect "the accused" in this case, which produces an obvious right to reply. [/B]

It seems to be perfectly acceptable for an anonymous person to create a thread here that clearly identifies an individual. Any amount of further comment and opinion can be added anonymously to this thread even though it may cause hurt to the family, friends, aquaintences. But it appears that if someone believes that the thread is hurtful and/or serving no further purpose, he is not allowed to post his opinion. If he does, he gets warned off by a moderator.

tayto lover

TomOnBoard wrote: »

It seems to be perfectly acceptable for an anonymous person to create a thread here that clearly identifies an individual. Any amount of further comment and opinion can be added anonymously to this thread even though it may cause hurt to the family, friends, aquaintences. But it appears that if someone believes that the thread is hurtful and/or serving no further purpose, he is not allowed to post his opinion. If he does, he gets warned off by a moderator.

Don't the politicians have "Dail privilege" to spout what they like about anyone?
Something they use regularly without caring about who they hurt and annoy.

TomOnBoard

tayto lover wrote: »

Don't the politicians have "Dail privilege" to spout what they like about anyone?
Something they use regularly without caring about who they hurt and annoy.

This is not about the politicians- it is about those who knew and cared for Mr McEntee and the hurt that will be felt by them because of commentary that will proliferate in perpetuity on the internet.

tony81

I'd say it's more than likely a combination of things. A nice lifestyle from a pub he gave up. The death of his father. Property investments, possibly geared, that bombed. A gravy train job that turned into a poisoned chalice.

A lot of his misfortune was from his own decisions. The rest is from the same economic mess that affects everyone else in the country. Many men are being driven to suicide by the exact same reasons. He wasn't special.

tayto lover

TomOnBoard wrote: »

This is not about the politicians- it is about those who knew and cared for Mr McEntee and the hurt that will be felt by them because of commentary that will proliferate in perpetuity on the internet.

Do you not think there are other reasons then ?

TomOnBoard

tayto lover wrote: »

Do you not think there are other reasons then ?

What I think or what you think as to what led to the man's death is purely speculative. Such entirely irrelevant speculation is nothing more than gossip-mongering and is leaving a trail of commentary that is of no help to his family and friends.

Why can no-one else see that?

tony81

TomOnBoard wrote: »

What I think or what you think as to what led to the man's death is purely speculative. Such entirely irrelevant speculation is nothing more than gossip-mongering and is leaving a trail of commentary that is of no help to his family and friends.

Why can no-one else see that?

Such as the irrelevant speculation that cyberbullies are responsible? (As pointed out by his brother)

End of the day, it doesn't matter. The guy's 6 feet under.

tayto lover

TomOnBoard wrote: »

What I think or what you think as to what led to the man's death is purely speculative. Such entirely irrelevant speculation is nothing more than gossip-mongering and is leaving a trail of commentary that is of no help to his family and friends.

Why can no-one else see that?

There's always more than one reason for suicide. Maybe the family and friends just need something to blame and they can put their finger on social media as it's the easiest target. There have been other rumours and suggestions too.

TomOnBoard

tony81 wrote: »

End of the day, it doesn't matter. The guy's 6 feet under.

This is just an example of the callous and unhelpful commentary that I have been referring to.

How can you say that? Of course it matters- to those left behind!!

TomOnBoard

tayto lover wrote: »

There have been other rumours and suggestions too.

Further gossip. How long will it be before those "other rumours and suggestions" are aired here to cause even more distress?

tayto lover

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Further gossip. How long will it be before those "other rumours and suggestions" are aired here to cause even more distress?

I think the mods do quite a good job on that front in fairness. Boards wouldn't be the worst site for that kind of thing. In all seriousness I don't believe that the comments and abuse he received on SM was the only cause for his actions.

Scofflaw

TomOnBoard wrote: »

It seems to be perfectly acceptable for an anonymous person to create a thread here that clearly identifies an individual. Any amount of further comment and opinion can be added anonymously to this thread even though it may cause hurt to the family, friends, aquaintences. But it appears that if someone believes that the thread is hurtful and/or serving no further purpose, he is not allowed to post his opinion. If he does, he gets warned off by a moderator.

Welcome to social media. People talk about people, particularly those in public life, nor do those people become sacrosanct by virtue of having died. The only difference between social media and society at large is that the conversations are available to those who may be offended by them without those involved making any attempt to thrust it in their faces.

There are two possible responses to the possibility that someone might be offended by what they read about themselves or their friends/family on social media - they can attempt to stop everyone else talking, or they can not read what offends them. The former, which you prefer on this occasion, requires extensive inroads on other people's freedoms, the latter does not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Slideshowbob

TomOnBoard wrote: »

This is not about the politicians- it is about those who knew and cared for Mr McEntee and the hurt that will be felt by them because of commentary that will proliferate in perpetuity on the internet.

Looking ahead, is it not really about creating awareness of legalities to prevent such suicides in the future.

If someone committed suicide because they were victimised through commentary, if they knew they had recourse to uncover who said what and validate the comment or otherwise, then maybe things may have gone differently?

Slideshowbob

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Further gossip. How long will it be before those "other rumours and suggestions" are aired here to cause even more distress?

They would need to be validated to stand here

TomOnBoard

Slideshowbob wrote: »

They would need to be validated to stand here

After some of the stuff that was trotted out here, I'm afraid that's not how it appears to me.

Anyway, I still think the fact that this rubbish is being facilitated and given oxygen over a week later is **** (I can't say what that word is 'coz I'd be accused again of Backseat Moderation.) Is there a "Best By" date (or in this case a "We've had Enough, Move on" date attached to threads when they are opened? Or do they live forever like Bruce Forsythe.

Will ye still be typing Sh^%e about this stuff in a year's time, adding more unsubstantiated rumour and gossip as yeer contribution to this man's legacy, or will someone see sense? Anyway, I'm having nothing more to do with it- I'm Outa here!:P

Slideshowbob

TomOnBoard wrote: »

After some of the stuff that was trotted out here, I'm afraid that's not how it appears to me.

Anyway, I still think the fact that this rubbish is being facilitated and given oxygen over a week later is **** (I can't say what that word is 'coz I'd be accused again of Backseat Moderation.) Is there a "Best By" date (or in this case a "We've had Enough, Move on" date attached to threads when they are opened? Or do they live forever like Bruce Forsythe.

Will ye still be typing Sh^%e about this stuff in a year's time, adding more unsubstantiated rumour and gossip as yeer contribution to this man's legacy, or will someone see sense? Anyway, I'm having nothing more to do with it- I'm Outa here!:P

It's a discussion forum isn't it? I'm sure the mods can address your queries on expiration of threads etc.

I understand mods here ensure what's said is substantiated or else correct it.

thebman

TomOnBoard wrote: »

After some of the stuff that was trotted out here, I'm afraid that's not how it appears to me.

Anyway, I still think the fact that this rubbish is being facilitated and given oxygen over a week later is **** (I can't say what that word is 'coz I'd be accused again of Backseat Moderation.) Is there a "Best By" date (or in this case a "We've had Enough, Move on" date attached to threads when they are opened? Or do they live forever like Bruce Forsythe.

Will ye still be typing Sh^%e about this stuff in a year's time, adding more unsubstantiated rumour and gossip as yeer contribution to this man's legacy, or will someone see sense? Anyway, I'm having nothing more to do with it- I'm Outa here!:P

If you look at the history, you've been double posting and everything to keep this thread on the front page of politics section.

Just ignore it and it will go away. Most forums do have a no bump on an inactive thread policy including boards I believe but if you keep a thread active then this won't kick in.

Personally I think the idea that social media alone can drive someone to commit suicide is nonsense.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

OK, at this point, if folks want to have a discussion about moderation of sensitive issues, or even the discussion of these topics, please take it to the "Discussion of the Rules" thread in this forum, or Feedback, if you feel this is a site-wide issue. Thanks.

Walt Jabsco

What sort of pressure was Shane McEntee under from his own party with regards the Social Welfare bill? Did he perhaps oppose it in private and then wrestle with his conscience before he was bullied by his colleagues and the party whip into signing up to it? Maybe the subsequent abuse he got after his ill judged comments to justify the cuts, on top of god knows what else, then drove him over the edge. the proverbial straw that broke the camels back. I don't know the answers, but i think that these are valid questions that should be asked in this debate.

Slideshowbob

Walt Jabsco wrote: »

What sort of pressure was Shane McEntee under from his own party with regards the Social Welfare bill? Did he perhaps oppose it in private and then wrestle with his conscience before he was bullied by his colleagues and the party whip into signing up to it? Maybe the subsequent abuse he got after his ill judged comments to justify the cuts, on top of god knows what else, then drove him over the edge. the proverbial straw that broke the camels back. I don't know the answers, but i think that these are valid questions that should be asked in this debate.

That's all pure speculation isn't it?

We will only really get to know more through a coroners report or if friends and family decide to disclose more wont we?

Walt Jabsco

It might be pure speculation alright, but it's as valid as "Social Media caused the suicide of a politician?". Is it not? We'll probably never get the answers we are looking for. But i tell you what, it's a great excuse for politicians to attack social media and our right to demand accountability.

hatrickpatrick

Slideshowbob wrote: »

It's a discussion forum isn't it? I'm sure the mods can address your queries on expiration of threads etc.

I understand mods here ensure what's said is substantiated or else correct it.

How do you define "substantiated" though? The claim that social media caused his suicide has not been substantiated, and it never will be until we all go to meet our maker and get the chance to ask this man himself what drove him over the edge.

Is a claim "substantiated" just because it has been aired in print media? Are you saying that idle speculation is ok if someone is merely quoting it from somebody else, as opposed to not being ok if it is that poster's original thought?

This makes no sense whatsoever. When it comes to an issue like this, ALL speculation on it is unsubstantiated, unless the person in question left a suicide note or otherwise indicated previously why he or she was going to do it, and even then it's only "substantiated" if everyone commenting has direct access to that note or document.

So I ask again, is it ok to discuss social media as a possible reason for this and not other potential reasons simply because the former has appeared in the mainstream media? If that is honestly how you define the credibility of a statement, I'm afraid you may be in for quite a few horribly rude shocks when you find out just how much of what appears in the mainstream press is total bullsh!t. I can attest to this myself, having been involved in a minor engine failure of a boat on Lough Derg a couple of years ago, Coast Guard was called and we asked if they could tow us back to our slipway since our gearbox had jammed, they obliged, next morning every radio station is reporting "12 young men rescued from certain death in a sinking boat on river shannon".

You cannot ascribe credibility to something merely based on the fact that it's in print.

EDIT: In case this reads like I'm commenting on moderation, I'm not - I'm simply commenting on the ridiculousness of certain people bashing others here for speculating about this, while apparently not objecting to the initial speculation that social media was a factor in the first place.

dvpower

irishpancake wrote: »

Can you point it out, or link it?? What sites?? What forums or discussion groups??

Who said what about him which could be construed as abuse, and could not be construed as legitimate criticism and comment??



What did his brother say which identified the on-line source for this so-called abuse??

Personally, I didn't see any of the instances of abuse that his brother was on about, but I've got no reason to disbelieve him - you don't need to look hard to see examples of online abuse directed towards politicians.
Whether this was a big factor leading to his suicide is another question altogether.
Whether we should do anything about it is also another question.

tayto lover wrote: »

Most of the comments on Boards that I have seen e.g. the Phil Hogan picture with his secretary could be construed either way depending on which side of the argument you are on. If I was seen in a pub with my arm around a woman who is not my wife I would be leaving myself open to views of that nature too and could expect adverse comments especially if I was a public figure.

If there was ever a clear cut example of online abuse of a public official, it was that instance.
A woman, an official in Phil Hogan's department, was photographed having a drink with him at a conference. The photo was posted on this site and she was referred to here as a bit of fluff, a tart and 'his fancy bird'.

The woman is not a public figure, but a public servant. Apparently proximity to Phil Hogan made her fair game.