Re: A Internet Ke Thagg Movie Online
Ted Brathwaite
The Customer Security Assurance organization has been established to ensure a safe and secure online experience for Comcast customers. This team is a dedicated group of security professionals who respond to issues pertaining to phishing, spam, infected computers (commonly referred to as bots), online fraud and other security issues.
If you believe you have encountered photographs, videos, or other content online that contains child pornography, please report the issue to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children at report.cybertip.org.
The photograph caused an uproar of Twitter, so much so that Harden's friend Young Thug chimed in on Thursday night. "[Harden] don't have internet so he obviously don't know what's right or wrong if he posted something that's against US..."
While many criticized Harden, including musician Trey Songz, who called it "certified clown s---," rapper Young Thug came to Harden's defense. Young Thug claimed that Harden doesn't have internet and would have been unaware of what the mask meant.
"Just so u know James harden is my brada," Young Thug's tweet read. "btw he don't have internet so he obviously don't know what's right or wrong if he posted something that's against US." The tweet appeared to call out Trey Songz's criticism of Harden.
One of the funniest memes to hit the internet in a long time has been the #ThugLife videos. The online phenomena spawned from the Thug Life hashtag that began on Twitter, which then made its way onto Instagram.
Flaming, also known as roasting, is the act of posting insults, often including profanity or other offensive language, on the internet.[1] This term should not be confused with the term trolling, which is the act of someone causing discord online or in person. Flaming emerged from the anonymity that Internet forums provide cover for users to act more aggressively.[2] Anonymity can lead to disinhibition, which results in the swearing, offensive, and hostile language characteristic of flaming. Lack of social cues, less accountability of face-to-face communications, textual mediation and deindividualization are also likely factors.[3] Deliberate flaming is carried out by individuals known as flamers, which are specifically motivated to incite flaming. These users specialize in flaming and target specific aspects of a controversial conversation.
While these behaviors may be typical or expected in certain types of forums, they can have dramatic, adverse effects in others. Flame wars can have a lasting impact on some internet communities where even once a flame war has concluded a division or even dissolution may occur.[3]
The pleasant commentaries within a chat room or message board can be limited by a "war of words" fight or "flaming" with the intent to seek out a negative reaction from the reader. Humphreys defines flaming as "the use of hostile language online, including swearing, insults and otherwise offensive language"etc.[3] Flaming by perpetrators within the online community is commonly received by messaging through text and rarely by face to face or video communication. By basing their conversations on text and not taking full accountability as the "flamer", they have a reduced self-awareness of others feelings, emotions and reactions based on the comments that they provide within the virtual community. The reader now has the perception that this "flamer" is difficult, rude and possibly a bully. The flamer may have limited social cues, emotional intelligence to adapt to others reactions and lack of awareness of how they are being perceived. Their personal social norms, may be considered disrespectful to the reader that has different social norms, education and experience with what is and is not appropriate within virtual communities.
The individuals that create an environment of flaming and hostility, lead the readers to disengage with the offender and may potentially leave the message board and chat room. The continual use of flaming within the online community can create a disruptive and negative experience for those involved and can lead to limited involvement and engagement within the original chat room and program.[4]
Social researchers have investigated flaming, coming up with several different theories about the phenomenon.[5] These include deindividuation and reduced awareness of other people's feelings (online disinhibition effect),[6][7][8] conformance to perceived norms,[9][10] miscommunication caused by the lack of social cues available in face-to-face communication,[11][12][13] and anti-normative behavior.[2]
Thus, online conversations often involve a variety of assumptions and motives unique to each individual user. Without social context, users are often helpless to know the intentions of their counterparts. In addition to the problems of conflicting mental models often present in online discussions, the inherent lack of face-to-face communication online can encourage hostility. Professor Norman Johnson, commenting on the propensity of Internet posters to flame one another, states:
There are multiple factors that play into why people would get involved with flaming. For instance, there is the anonymity factor and that people can use different means to have their identity hidden.[16] Through the hiding of one's identity people can build a new persona and act in a way that they normally would not when they have their identity known. Another factor in flaming is proactive aggression "which is initiated without perceived threat or provocation" and those who are recipients of flaming may counter with flaming of their own and utilize reactive aggression.[16] Another factor that goes into flaming are the different communication variables. For instance, offline communications networks can impact the way people act online and can lead them to engage in flaming.[16] Finally, there is the factor of verbal aggression and how people who engage in verbal aggression will use those tactics when they engage in flaming online.[16]
Flaming can range from subtle to extremely aggressive in online behaviors, such as derogatory images, certain emojis used in combination, and even the use of capital letters. These things can show a pattern of behavior used to convey certain emotions online. Victims should do their best to avoid fighting back in an attempt to prevent a war of words. Flaming extends past social media interactions. Flaming can also take place through emails, and it may not matter so much whether someone calls an email a "flame", is based on whether she or he considers an email to be hostile, aggressive, insulting, or offensive. What matters is how the person receives the interaction. So much is lost in translation when communicating online versus in person, that it is hard to distinguish someone's intent.[17]
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) research has spent a significant amount of time and effort describing and predicting engagement in uncivil, aggressive online communication. Specifically, the literature has described aggressive, insulting behavior as "flaming", which has been defined as hostile verbal behaviors,[21] the uninhibited expression of hostility, insults, and ridicule, and hostile comments directed towards a person or organization within the context of CMC.[21]
In sociology, history, or any kind of online ethnographic academic study, flame wars as a corpus, in a STS approach of controversies, may be used to understand what is at stake in a community. The idea is that the flame war drives the actors into abandoning a polite stance and forces them to engage into debate and to unveil otherwise concealed arguments. In this respect, the most interesting parts of an online corpus are the flame wars as "outbursts of heated, short and dense debates, in an ocean of evenly distributed polite messages".[26]
In 2005, author Anne Rice became involved in a flame war of sorts on the review boards of online retailer Amazon.com after several reviewers posted scathing comments about her latest novel. Rice responded to the comments with her own lengthy response, which was quickly met with more feedback from users.[18]
In 2007, tech expert Kathy Sierra was a victim of flaming as an image of her depicted as a mutilated body was spread around online forums. In addition to the doctored photo being spread virally, her social security number and home address were made public as well. Consequently, Sierra effectively gave up her technology career in response to the ensuing harassment and threats that she received as a result of the flaming.[28][25]
Flaming varies in severity and as such so too does the reaction of states in imposing any sort of sanction.[31] Laws vary from country to country, but in most cases, constant flaming can be considered cyber harassment,[32] which can result in Internet Service Provider action to prevent access to the site being flamed. However, as social networks become more and more closely connected to people and their real life, the more harsh words may be considered defamation of the person.[33] For instance, a South Korean Identity Verification law was created to help control flaming and to stop "malicious use of the internet" but opponents to the law argue that the law infringes on the right to free speech.[2]
While the trajectory of the documents may seem novel, a closer look reveals that many significant intelligence leaks over the past 15 years have been substantially motivated by online reality. These leaks are not the product of espionage, media investigations, or political activism, but 21st-century digital culture: specifically, by the desire to gain stature among online friends.
Coffee shops could be havens for cyberthieves or others who want to eavesdrop on your online activities because people often connect to free Wi-Fi without thinking of the risks. Using specialized tools or fake hotspots, hackers could launch Man-in-the-Middle attacks to get in between point A (your device) and point B (a website) to intercept your valuable personal information.
aa06259810