There's definitely a difference between yelling profanities at someone and flashing them. A video call is different than audio and I believe it would be disingenuous to argue otherwise.

Is there a difference? I feel the claim that there is one is a bit perverse, and that any line that one would try to draw between the two would completely fail to be non-arbitrary.

Weak on the cyber but possibly quite strong in the attack.

Some of it seems like cybering to me.

That I agree with.

On video you could for example show a child very extreme images of violence. I think you could seriously harm someone in just a few seconds doing that. Not the same as phoning someone.

You better stay away from social media/youtube I see some awful images not even child related. I remember the operation channel doing eye surgery during dinnertime. It's hard to get your innocence back but as you mature you can handle the odd open heart surgery while munching away.

What ruins police is their day is endlessly looking at these photos that each new photo is another child.. it can feel hopeless. You can't compare it to someone dropping a dick pic in your zoom sharing screen ruining you for life. Most people's mental state can handle a brief gross moment.

We quickly forget that not even 120 years ago it was common for kids to be helping their parents butcher chickens and have at least one of their siblings die of a horrible disease.

Humans are more robust to shock than our cozy modern world might have us think.

It is, like you said,the non-stop barrage of horror that crushes people.

I distinctly remember being a bit shocked when I was ~6-8 and my great-grandfather smacked the fish I'd just caught on the gunwales of our boat. sudden, violent, but I pretty quickly realized "well yeah, I guess you do have to kill the fish at some point".

Though I did get messed up by a Discovery channel documentary about spontaneous human combustion when I was a kid. Mostly because I didn't get to finish it.

Having a hard time understanding why prank calling someone and threatening sexual violence against them not being not a big deal.

> Having a hard time understanding why prank calling someone and threatening sexual violence against them not being not a big deal.

I don't really think I said that, did I. You're either imagining something I didn't said or you're deliberately misrepresenting.

I said:

> Not the same as phoning someone.

And it's not the same. It's surely far more harmful to be able to show someone an image than just audio. You can literally do everything you can in audio in video, and then more.

You don't have to listen to me - I think you'll find that flashing someone is prosecuted more severely than an obscene phone call in most societies.

Also, threatening sexual violence is never a 'prank' - don't do that.

Drawing genitalia on the screen is immature but isn't really sexual violence. It's a little disrespectful towards rape victims or abuse victims to feel that action is on the same level. It's a prank..

I didn't say it wasn't a big deal. I said it wasn't a cyberattack. Crashing my car into an electronics store isn't "hacking" either.

I think you're somehow right, it's just that society is used to phone and potential jokes whereas they expect web stuff to be more secure and intimate. It's more relative psychology.

Not saying it can't be harmful. But "cyberattack" just isn't the right word.

I can email awful images to you too.

It seems like that would be cyber harassment and attacking someone.

That's a matter of perspective. If someone is critiquing you and you don't like it, you can easily twist that to say you were attacked and effectively shut down conversations you don't agree with.

I would assume if someone was sending "awful images" via email it's probably meant to be malicious and probably not a critique.

Maybe they are attacking your sexual conservatism.

Not saying it means that is OK, but the decision is not clear cut either.

Cyberattack has an existing meaning, and it's not that.

Cyberattack is a fairly generic term (as is anything "cyber-"). Just intentionally joining a Zoom room you're not supposed to be in/know about is probably "unauthorized access to a resource" and thus a "cyberattack" according to some definitions, and mainstream media, school administrators, ... are going to use those kind of definitions.

E.g. random definition pulled from merriam webster dictionary:

> an attempt to gain illegal access to a computer or computer system for the purpose of causing damage or harm

One can argue that there's not enough focus on the attack on a system here, but I'm not surprised it's used that way.

I guess mild forms of such, technically speaking.

a naked guy joining a school lecture or someone in a virtual AA meeting encouraging people to drink is much more than a prank.

I think this is an argument about "type" rather than severity. if I call you and threaten your life, it's a very severe offense, but it's not phreaking.