2 ms·

Well I sincerely hope that people like you don't start writing laws.

by tomp 11y ago

jameshart 11y ago
Why are you so adamant about protecting the freedom of strangers to make someone's online life a living hell? To send them specific, personal, detailed threats? I don't understand why you believe that is 'speech' worth protecting. Sure, there's a line, and some behavior that people complain about as harassment doesn't cross that line, but some behavior is way out of order and should be stopped, with the force of law. Drawing those lines, between what is acceptable and what is not, is the job of laws. That isn't the top of a slippery slope, it's not the thin end of a wedge that leads to censorship, it's the way society functions.
- tomp 11y ago
  I can think of 3 main reasons: - in the vast, vast majority of cases, it's not as bad as they (you, feminists, the UN, the "victims") claim it is - the solutions they suggest are difficult to implement - for example, you would need to eradicate online anonymity - whereas my solution is very simple - use personal blocking software or, better yet, just ignore the trolls - both of the points above lead me to conclude that their goals are insincere - that they're using "harassment" just as an excuse to legalize and implement more censorship and restrictions that will be used for nefarious political causes, the same as happened before with e.g. the "threats" of piracy and pedophilia Edit: another reason is that I don't really recall many laws that made the internet better (DMCA, EU cookie laws, the "right to forget", Australia's blacklist), so it's seems unlikely that this time they will do it right
  - rayiner 11y ago
    I think the idea that you can say things online that you couldn't say in person is going in the dustbin of history. I don't think that's a good thing, but it's not just "feminists" and the UN in that camp. As the Internet becomes just an extension of the real world, with broad participation from everyone, totally anonymous and consequence free speech likely won't be tolerated by the public.
    - tomp 11y ago
      I don't understand... what can't you say in public? I mean, insulting someone won't get you thrown in jail...
      - jameshart 11y ago
        You admitted at the top of this thread that you are minimizing online threats by calling them 'insults', and that you're doing so to push your 'free speech' agenda. You're doing it again, and it is growing tiresome. We aren't talking about 'insults', we're talking about sustained campaigns of intimidation using specific, personal threats. As an exercise, please, today, go out to a public space, pick someone at random, and follow them around for a half hour or so, hurling abusive, threatening language at them. Draw pictures of them being subjected to violent abuse and hand them to passers by. Follow them to their home, ring the doorbell, and when they answer tell them that they and their family aren't safe. I think you'll discover that your freedom of speech gets curtailed pretty quickly. Then explain why doing the same while following someone from Twitter, across internet message boards, and then calling their cellphone, is qualitatively different.
        tomp 11y ago
        > You're doing it again, and it is growing tiresome. We aren't talking about 'insults', we're talking about sustained campaigns of intimidation using specific, personal threats. It's equally tiresome for me when you call them threats. A real threat is e.g. "Give me your money, otherwise I'll shoot you.". I'm calling them insults because I'm not taking these "threats" seriously. I believe that in the very vast majority of cases, these threats are meant only to have an emotional impact (just like insults), not to express actual intention to commit a crime (warning your target would be stupid). However, if you disagree, you can always inform the police, there are no new laws required. IIRC, some anti-GamerGate activists did that, and the police dropped their investigation, not considering the threats serious, just like me (and so far, they've never been wrong). > I think you'll discover that your freedom of speech gets curtailed pretty quickly. I think either one of two things will happen: either (1) someone will attack me, which is a crime, or (2) someone will accuse me of being politically incorrect and will try to publicly shame me in hopes of getting fired. Internet removes option (1), which I think is good, while option (2) is equally abusive as the one you're against.

Well I sincerely hope that people like you don't start writing laws.

by tomp 11y ago

Well I sincerely hope that people like you don't start writing laws.

Why are you so adamant about protecting the freedom of strangers to make someone's online life a living hell? To send them specific, personal, detailed threats? I don't understand why you believe that is 'speech' worth protecting. Sure, there's a line, and some behavior that people complain about as harassment doesn't cross that line, but some behavior is way out of order and should be stopped, with the force of law. Drawing those lines, between what is acceptable and what is not, is the job of laws. That isn't the top of a slippery slope, it's not the thin end of a wedge that leads to censorship, it's the way society functions.

tomp 11y ago
I can think of 3 main reasons: - in the vast, vast majority of cases, it's not as bad as they (you, feminists, the UN, the "victims") claim it is - the solutions they suggest are difficult to implement - for example, you would need to eradicate online anonymity - whereas my solution is very simple - use personal blocking software or, better yet, just ignore the trolls - both of the points above lead me to conclude that their goals are insincere - that they're using "harassment" just as an excuse to legalize and implement more censorship and restrictions that will be used for nefarious political causes, the same as happened before with e.g. the "threats" of piracy and pedophilia Edit: another reason is that I don't really recall many laws that made the internet better (DMCA, EU cookie laws, the "right to forget", Australia's blacklist), so it's seems unlikely that this time they will do it right
- rayiner 11y ago
  I think the idea that you can say things online that you couldn't say in person is going in the dustbin of history. I don't think that's a good thing, but it's not just "feminists" and the UN in that camp. As the Internet becomes just an extension of the real world, with broad participation from everyone, totally anonymous and consequence free speech likely won't be tolerated by the public.
  - tomp 11y ago
    I don't understand... what can't you say in public? I mean, insulting someone won't get you thrown in jail...
    - jameshart 11y ago
      You admitted at the top of this thread that you are minimizing online threats by calling them 'insults', and that you're doing so to push your 'free speech' agenda. You're doing it again, and it is growing tiresome. We aren't talking about 'insults', we're talking about sustained campaigns of intimidation using specific, personal threats. As an exercise, please, today, go out to a public space, pick someone at random, and follow them around for a half hour or so, hurling abusive, threatening language at them. Draw pictures of them being subjected to violent abuse and hand them to passers by. Follow them to their home, ring the doorbell, and when they answer tell them that they and their family aren't safe. I think you'll discover that your freedom of speech gets curtailed pretty quickly. Then explain why doing the same while following someone from Twitter, across internet message boards, and then calling their cellphone, is qualitatively different.
      - tomp 11y ago
        > You're doing it again, and it is growing tiresome. We aren't talking about 'insults', we're talking about sustained campaigns of intimidation using specific, personal threats. It's equally tiresome for me when you call them threats. A real threat is e.g. "Give me your money, otherwise I'll shoot you.". I'm calling them insults because I'm not taking these "threats" seriously. I believe that in the very vast majority of cases, these threats are meant only to have an emotional impact (just like insults), not to express actual intention to commit a crime (warning your target would be stupid). However, if you disagree, you can always inform the police, there are no new laws required. IIRC, some anti-GamerGate activists did that, and the police dropped their investigation, not considering the threats serious, just like me (and so far, they've never been wrong). > I think you'll discover that your freedom of speech gets curtailed pretty quickly. I think either one of two things will happen: either (1) someone will attack me, which is a crime, or (2) someone will accuse me of being politically incorrect and will try to publicly shame me in hopes of getting fired. Internet removes option (1), which I think is good, while option (2) is equally abusive as the one you're against.