instruction:
Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no".
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
question:
I love all the people saying shit like "Wow it seems like you have never interacted with another person", like that's the kind of line anyone would every pull outside of the Internet.
answer:
no

question:
hahahaha fuck weebs
answer:
yes

question:
>Literally attempted suicide Code for, "I threw a temper tantrum until my parents gave me my phone back" >and other suicides have been successful under the same conditions. Which should tell you that kids having 24/7 access to cell phones and social media is part of the problem, not the solution. I was a teenager in the time before cell phones (my parents had a car phone) and the internet (I could use my 2400 bps modem to call into local BBS systems) and I hate to sound cliche but kids were a hell of a lot better adjusted. If we wanted to talk to someone we actually had to talk to them and there was no drive to impress (or bully) our peers on social media. A kid under the age of 16 doesn't need a cell phone, nor do they need unrestricted access to social media. Sorry, they just don't. At 16 you're much closer to being an adult than a kid and you gain the ability to drive so a cell phone isn't a terrible idea. Sorry, but I think we're raising a generation of kids who will be damaged by the internet, OP is just one example of that and so is the related post talking about the kid who thinks they are trans.
answer:
yes