4 ms·

Jesus, I hope that's false. Cyberspace isn't real. It's absolutely insane to suggest that one ought to have control over some abstract data just because there e

by wyager 10y ago

Jesus, I hope that's false. Cyberspace isn't real. It's absolutely insane to suggest that one ought to have control over some abstract data just because there exists a vague correspondence between some part of that data and some piece of land they own in the real world. Should photographs of buildings be illegal? After all, it's just a virtual representation of the real property. In fact, it's a much closer representation than just "these fake coordinates vaguely resemble these real coordinates".

tremon 10y ago
I think you're missing context here: the GP specifically said he was talking about implications of AR application intersecting with real property.
- yoodenvranx 10y ago
  Yes, exactly, I am not talking about some random virtual world but specifically about AR and its connection to the real world. I wonder what the military thinks about the Ingress portals and PokemonStops on their bases. In worst case that will results in some virtual ban zones around military compounds where AR is forbidden.
- BatFastard 10y ago
  AR and its intersection with real property is a HUGE topic. Can people post ads on your building in AR? Can they write nasty things about you and your customers? Can they setup trap for drug dealers? There are literally hundreds of such questions. Do you have control over how Google maps depicts your properties, how about China Netcom? AR is the worlds biggest genie, and people are just starting to become aware of it. The idea of "Controlling AR" is ridiculous! Its going to come from a million places..
- wyager 10y ago
  AR doesn't "intersect" with anything. It's virtual. It's pixels on a screen. What shows up on my screen has no connection to someone else's physical property.
heartsucker 10y ago
So let's say in some future everyone is always wearing AR. Now let's some someone somehow got derogatory terms to constantly float above your head. There are negative impacts from this: loss of job, harder to meet people, unable to get hire. Because AR "isn't real", should you have no recourse against this? At the gut level, that doesn't feel right, so as much as some people want to pretend The Web is some wild west of freedom and lawlessness, it really makes sense (some times, with experts consulted) to have (some) regulations.
- wyager 10y ago
  You're leaving essentially everything about this scenario underspecified, but no; it should not be illegal to say mean things about someone through technology. Do you really have to ask that question?
  - heartsucker 10y ago
    If somone followed someone else around all day and yelled obscenities at them, there are laws to punish the perpetrator. If someone followed you around everywhere you went on the internet and comment and messaged and posted obscenities at you, you'd want the same protection. I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to speak freely, but somewhere out there is a line that crosses from exercising freedom of speech into harassment. This comic [0] explains it nicely. Just because it's on the internet and "not real life" doesn't mean it doesn't affect your happiness or your life "offline." [0] - https://xkcd.com/1216/ https://xkcd.com/1216/
    - wyager 10y ago
      > If someone followed you around everywhere you went on the internet and comment and messaged and posted obscenities at you, you'd want the same protection. It's called a troll, and no I wouldn't, because I'm not a tremendous wanker. I'm an emotionally stable adult who can deal with someone calling me names. I prioritize free speech over the feelings of people who can't take shit on the Internet. It's not that I've never felt bad after someone criticized me on the Internet; it's that I understand that life is full of positive and negative interactions and you have to deal with both. Crying and demanding that insulting you be made illegal is a puerile and unhealthy response.
monocasa 10y ago
> Cyberspace isn't real. You could argue it's just as real as the other fairly arbitrary borders that define public vs private property.

by wyager 10y ago

tremon 10y ago

I think you're missing context here: the GP specifically said he was talking about implications of AR application intersecting with real property.

yoodenvranx 10y ago
Yes, exactly, I am not talking about some random virtual world but specifically about AR and its connection to the real world. I wonder what the military thinks about the Ingress portals and PokemonStops on their bases. In worst case that will results in some virtual ban zones around military compounds where AR is forbidden.
BatFastard 10y ago
AR and its intersection with real property is a HUGE topic. Can people post ads on your building in AR? Can they write nasty things about you and your customers? Can they setup trap for drug dealers? There are literally hundreds of such questions. Do you have control over how Google maps depicts your properties, how about China Netcom? AR is the worlds biggest genie, and people are just starting to become aware of it. The idea of "Controlling AR" is ridiculous! Its going to come from a million places..
wyager 10y ago
AR doesn't "intersect" with anything. It's virtual. It's pixels on a screen. What shows up on my screen has no connection to someone else's physical property.

heartsucker 10y ago

So let's say in some future everyone is always wearing AR. Now let's some someone somehow got derogatory terms to constantly float above your head. There are negative impacts from this: loss of job, harder to meet people, unable to get hire. Because AR "isn't real", should you have no recourse against this? At the gut level, that doesn't feel right, so as much as some people want to pretend The Web is some wild west of freedom and lawlessness, it really makes sense (some times, with experts consulted) to have (some) regulations.

wyager 10y ago
You're leaving essentially everything about this scenario underspecified, but no; it should not be illegal to say mean things about someone through technology. Do you really have to ask that question?
- heartsucker 10y ago
  If somone followed someone else around all day and yelled obscenities at them, there are laws to punish the perpetrator. If someone followed you around everywhere you went on the internet and comment and messaged and posted obscenities at you, you'd want the same protection. I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to speak freely, but somewhere out there is a line that crosses from exercising freedom of speech into harassment. This comic [0] explains it nicely. Just because it's on the internet and "not real life" doesn't mean it doesn't affect your happiness or your life "offline." [0] - https://xkcd.com/1216/ https://xkcd.com/1216/
  - wyager 10y ago
    > If someone followed you around everywhere you went on the internet and comment and messaged and posted obscenities at you, you'd want the same protection. It's called a troll, and no I wouldn't, because I'm not a tremendous wanker. I'm an emotionally stable adult who can deal with someone calling me names. I prioritize free speech over the feelings of people who can't take shit on the Internet. It's not that I've never felt bad after someone criticized me on the Internet; it's that I understand that life is full of positive and negative interactions and you have to deal with both. Crying and demanding that insulting you be made illegal is a puerile and unhealthy response.

monocasa 10y ago

> Cyberspace isn't real. You could argue it's just as real as the other fairly arbitrary borders that define public vs private property.