Influencers over-editing photos in Social Media/Cyber-bullying accusations

rawn

AttentionBebe wrote:

Watch Aoife Dooley's insta story to see the type of person you're defending lads.

Is Aoife Dooley her name on IG? Can't find her

GingerLily

rawn wrote: »

Is Aoife Dooley her name on IG? Can't find her

https://www.instagram.com/aoife_dooley/

rawn

Thanks Ginger. Damn it's all so sinister! If all of those profiles really are that person then that person needs help. A lot of it.

GingerLily

rawn wrote: »

Thanks Ginger. Damn it's all so sinister! If all of those profiles really are that person then that person needs help. A lot of it.

Its scary. I mean we critize influencers for blocking people who ask innocent questions, but I guess we probably don't understand how bad trolling they must get.

Very interesting the suggestion that the online troll (whoever they may be) targeted people who spoke about mental health, and for the reason that they'd be vulnerable.

All in all, BU did some good, but it's opened my eyes to a very dark world going on, across so many areas of social media.

ibarelycare

Aoife Dooley posted absolutely no evidence linking BU with the accounts that were abusing her. She posted an obsessively long rambly story full of speculation and assumptions. I didn’t watch it all cos I frankly got bored, but I thought it was comical that she accused BU of “targeting” both WMC and RMC cos they’ve both spoken out about suffering from mental health...

1. BU targeted WMC for driving and snapping, and posted proof of them doing so. Before that, Paul was supportive of the page. He’s a manchild who can’t take a smidgen of the crap that he puts out against other people. He’s a pathetic 40-something-year-old troll.
2. BU never targeted RMC. She would have only loved that so she could continue her career of being a professional victim.

AttentionBebe

How anyone can see all the evidence before them, of years upon years of trolling and vile abuse, from people who have absolutely no reason to lie about it, and still defend her is beyond belief. Do you think disliking a blogger justifies any of this? Really?

fima

ibarelycare wrote: »

Aoife Dooley posted absolutely no evidence linking BU with the accounts that were abusing her. .

I don’t think that was the point though ? She highlighted what this person has been doing to her for nearly a year. <snip> Whether she’s BU or not is irrelevant, she’s a bully who targeted someone during a vulnerable time (the death of her father) which I think if you consider <snip>, it’s just despicable.

AttentionBebe

To be honest fima, if people will still defend RT even knowing the absolute torture they've put people through, then it says more about them than anyone else.

ibarelycare

fima wrote: »

I don’t think that was the point though ? She highlighted what this person has been doing to her for nearly a year. <snip>. Whether she’s BU or not is irrelevant, she’s a bully who targeted someone during a vulnerable time (the death of her father) which I think if you consider <snip>, it’s just despicable.

Is that person RT? I must have missed the evidence of that.


BTW I’m not defending any of the things RT may have done. However i don’t believe that every troll page on the internet is her, and it’s dangerous for people to suggesting otherwise without proof.

AttentionBebe

Are people saying that every troll on the internet is RT? Or are loads of unrelated people coming forward with shocking stories of online harassment by the same individual? It's just that I don't think those are the same thing.

Btw, on one hand you say that you didn't watch Aoife's story, but then say she presents no evidence...which is it?

RockDesk

Right, so RT is definitely Santa Paws because someone on Facebook tagged RT a few years ago and it links to Santa Paws. Has Santa Paws been definitively linked to being BU? Where exactly does the link happen?

I'm not arguing for or against it, it's just got so messy with screenshots of so much stuff, that I can't remember if I saw where Santa Paws, or RT has definitely been linked to being BU.

ibarelycare

AttentionBebe wrote: »

Are people saying that every troll on the internet is RT? Or are loads of unrelated people coming forward with shocking stories of online harassment by the same individual? It's just that I don't think those are the same thing.

Btw, on one hand you say that you didn't watch Aoife's story, but then say she presents no evidence...which is it?

I didn’t say I didn’t watch her stories. I said I watched about half (as in half of her stories up til this morning). I believe I’d watched all her screenshots. She’d finished presenting everything it seemed. That’s why I asked if she had posted evidence that the accounts were all RT. So...did she?

ibarelycare

GingerLily wrote: »

She stated that one of the users involved in a reddit group was Lexie, same name RT used on Boards.

Yeah I know that account on Reddit is Lexie/RT. That was never a secret. I still don’t see what that proves?

Again I’m not defending all the terrible things that someone may have done in their past, but I highly disagree with people making wild accusations based purely on suspicion.

meeeeh

I'll speculate that BU is a group of people who were also on boards. I always thought their attitude was very nasty but they had some valid points about unethical practices. Anyway we might find out for certain because request to obtain order for IP address(s) is before the courts.

wyrn

AttentionBebe wrote: »

Are people saying that every troll on the internet is RT? Or are loads of unrelated people coming forward with shocking stories of online harassment by the same individual? It's just that I don't think those are the same thing.

Btw, on one hand you say that you didn't watch Aoife's story, but then say she presents no evidence...which is it?

I've seen on Facebook people call another Boards member here RT. They've also claimed that a number of Instagram accounts are RT when they are the other boards person. There has been a lot of push by some influencers to equate the two together for whatever the reason.



Personally I'm not condoning RT past online behaviour. I just feel this mob mentality towards RT is getting too much. To me, it feels so orchestrated that we are being pushed towards "look at how awful RT has been in the past" while diverting attention from elsewhere like the work that BU was doing. I don't know who BU is, I'm leaning toward it not being RT based on John Mooney's interview.


Can't comment on AD post as I'm blocked. I used to watch her stories and many other influencers as I made a decision long ago to only follow family & friends on Instagram. I never commented or said anything at all about AD but she blocked me. I actually was a big fan and really admired her when she posted about her discovery of her autism diagnosis.

AttentionBebe

I guess it's possible everyone is just making it up for the lols! Who wouldn't want to ruin a random beautician from Tullamore right? (Ever hear of the expression Occam's Razor)?

Here's a bit of light reading for anyone who inexplicably still thinks she's innocent, this stuff goes back to at least 2010:

http://jessisfake.blogspot.com/

GingerLily

RockDesk wrote: »

Right, so RT is definitely Santa Paws because someone on Facebook tagged RT a few years ago and it links to Santa Paws. Has Santa Paws been definitively linked to being BU? Where exactly does the link happen?

I'm not arguing for or against it, it's just got so messy with screenshots of so much stuff, that I can't remember if I saw where Santa Paws, or RT has definitely been linked to being BU.

There are screenshots here:

http://jessisfake.blogspot.com/2018/08/ramona-treacy-revealed-to-be-bloggers.html?m=1

Santa Paws saying she is going to be outed as BU and freaking out - it doesn't necessarily mean she is BU, but it seems likely she was involved with BU, significantly involved.

wyrn

meeeeh wrote: »

I'll speculate that BU is a group of people who were also on boards. I always thought their attitude was very nasty but they had some valid points about unethical practices. Anyway we might find out for certain because request to obtain order for IP address(s) is before the courts.

Highly doubt that would happen. It's really difficult to obtain and even more expensive. FB in the past has been very hard against releasing info on civil cases.

GingerLily

wyrn wrote: »

Highly doubt that would happen. It's really difficult to obtain and even more expensive. FB in the past has been very hard against releasing info on civil cases.

Have you read this?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/legal-attack-on-fashion-blogger-bgf5clkm3

ibarelycare

AttentionBebe wrote: »

I guess it's possible everyone is just making it up for the lols! Who wouldn't want to ruin a random beautician from Tullamore right? (Ever hear of the expression Occam's Razor)?

Here's a bit of light reading for anyone who inexplicably still thinks she's innocent, this stuff goes back to at least 2010:

http://jessisfake.blogspot.com/

You’re missing the point, or just sidestepping it. I’m not condoning anyone’s past behaviour. I’m not saying anyone is making up abuse they’ve received. But where is AD’s proof? She’s making assumptions, which may be right or wrong, but they’re only assumptions. Do you think that, because someone has done wrong in the past, they deserve to receive some sort of “comeuppance” for things that they might not have done?

wyrn

AttentionBebe wrote: »

I guess it's possible everyone is just making it up for the lols! Who wouldn't want to ruin a random beautician from Tullamore right? (Ever hear of the expression Occam's Razor)?

Here's a bit of light reading for anyone who inexplicably still thinks she's innocent, this stuff goes back to at least 2010:

http://jessisfake.blogspot.com/

I don't think anyone said she's innocent.
Some of us just don't think she's 100% BU. There's a huge difference there. I admit it could be her, or she could be part of a team behind BU but I haven't seen any definitive proof it is her.


Sure if she was, you'd think CC and Avant Garde would be straight on to their lawyers to instruct them to peruse a case against her.

wyrn

GingerLily wrote: »

Have you read this?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/legal-attack-on-fashion-blogger-bgf5clkm3

Yeah I did. There's a big difference between saying you'll do something and actually doing it once you've spoken to legal representation.

GingerLily

ibarelycare wrote: »

Yeah I know that account on Reddit is Lexie/RT. That was never a secret. I still don’t see what that proves?

Again I’m not defending all the terrible things that someone may have done in their past, but I highly disagree with people making wild accusations based purely on suspicion.

It doesn't mean she's every troll on the internet - but she's certainly involved in a lot of trolling.

It's so horrible the online harassment that people are getting, I think we need to take bullying and trolling seriously.

meeeeh

wyrn wrote: »

Personally I'm not condoning RT past online behaviour. I just feel this mob mentality towards RT is getting too much. To me, it feels so orchestrated that we are being pushed towards "look at how awful RT has been in the past" while diverting attention from elsewhere like the work that BU was doing. I don't know who BU is, I'm leaning toward it not being RT based on John Mooney's .

I think the floodgates were open and a lot of people are starting to realise they were harrased by same social media accounts. The poor me article in Times might fuel the anger. I actually believe RT that she is a victim of harassment but it seems to be the same type of harassment she dished out herself.

As for the good work of BU, it seems Cari's Closest think they have strong enough case to take them on for online harassment.

GingerLily

wyrn wrote: »

Yeah I did. There's a big difference between saying you'll do something and actually doing it once you've spoken to legal representation.

Sure time will tell!

GingerLily

meeeeh wrote: »

I think the floodgates were open and a lot of people are starting to realise they were harrased by same social media accounts. The poor me article in Times might fuel the anger. I actually believe RT that she is a victim of harassment but it seems to be the same type of harassment she dished out herself.

As for the good work of BU, it seems Cari's Closest think they have strong enough case to take them on for online harassment.

What exactly is their case? They'll make no money from going after her and there business is already tarnished.

ibarelycare

GingerLily wrote: »

It doesn't mean she's every troll on the internet - but she's certainly involved in a lot of trolling.

It's so horrible the online harassment that people are getting, I think we need to take bullying and trolling seriously.

Yes it does appear she has been involved in a lot of trolling. No denying that. But what AD is saying has no evidence as far as I can see. She even mentioned two accounts that I know for a fact aren’t RT.

fima

GingerLily wrote: »

What exactly is their case? They'll make no money from going after her and there business is already tarnished.

They’re just raging they were called out, similar to WMC and now they can’t let it go.

AttentionBebe

ibarelycare wrote: »

You’re missing the point, or just sidestepping it. I’m not condoning anyone’s past behaviour. I’m not saying anyone is making up abuse they’ve received. But where is AD’s proof? She’s making assumptions, which may be right or wrong, but they’re only assumptions. Do you think that, because someone has done wrong in the past, they deserve to receive some sort of “comeuppance” for things that they might not have done?

Do you not believe the screenshots where she accidentally outed herself on the BU account, and deleted them seconds later? If it was merely sent into the BU account as she claims, would it really have been deleted after a few seconds? Do you not believe the screenshots where she admits it to someone else? If it were all coming from one source, I'd agree that it's possibly a set up (unlikely, but possible). But coming from multiple, unrelated sources who have no reason to do this? I personally don't buy it. You're free to believe what you want.

ibarelycare

AttentionBebe wrote: »

Do you not believe the screenshots where she accidentally outed herself on the BU account, and deleted them seconds later? If it was merely sent into the BU account as she claims, would it really have been deleted after a few seconds? Do you not believe the screenshots where she admits it to someone else? If it were all coming from one source, I'd agree that it's possibly a set up (unlikely, but possible). But coming from multiple, unrelated sources who have no reason to do this? I personally don't buy it. You're free to believe what you want.

That’s not what we’re discussing. I’m not sure if you’re being deliberately obtuse or what, but we’re talking about AD accusing RT of being all these accounts that were abusing her, with absolutely ZERO evidence.