3 ms·
> If we continue to censor ourselves, it will destroy us. Hence, the title of OP's post. It was all really inevitable though.. The collective code we write sp
by kefs 14y ago
> If we continue to censor ourselves, it will destroy us.
Hence, the title of OP's post.
It was all really inevitable though.. The collective code we write spawned this. We make it increasingly simple for humans to share.. and equally as easy for humans to collaborate. These forces will combine for good and/or evil.
Take this past week on reddit as an example... If you don't know it, one of their most prolific users, Violentacrez was forced to close his account for simply sharing controversial photos. As a result, he became a target of ShitRedditSays, Project Panda, and RedditBomb. He was doxxed and threatened IRL.. He is now offline.
If we were to listen to Voltaire unequivocally, then the same should go for OP, and Violentacrez.
How would you respond?
http://i.imgur.com/AL52y.png http://i.imgur.com/AL52y.png
- ahelwer 14y ago"Simply sharing controversial photos"... nice disingenuous way to say "creating a platform and framework for sharing sexualized pictures of preteens and photos of women taken without their consent, for years, while doing everything in his power (and mostly succeeding) in normalizing the process". Honestly, it's like when people say "free speech" they really mean "be able to do anything I want no matter how horrible with zero consequences or criticism." I'm glad VA is gone. I hope he gets thrown in a jail cell.
- kefs 14y agoIf it's against the law, report it to the police; Don't take the law into your own hands. It makes you no better than what you're trying to expunge.
- _delirium 14y agoI don't think we have to behave positively towards all behavior that falls short of illegality. In Violentacrez's case, he was long-term harassing people, posting creepy photos without their consent, etc. It may not have risen to the level of a crime, but I don't see any reason people shouldn't strongly criticize his behavior, including criticizing him by his real name, if they can discover that name through legal means. Why should him posting sexualized photos of people (including kids) without their consent be tolerated, but suddenly one violates some threshold of civility to say: "I've discovered that the guy posting these photos is Michael Brutsch, and I would like him to stop."
- kefs 14y agoI'm not defending anyone.. other than Voltaire's quote. I don't really have an opinion on the situation at reddit.. I was just mentioning it as a related current topic.
- _delirium 14y agoI guess my point was that if you really take a hardline free-speech view seriously, as in the (attributed) Voltaire quote, then "doxxing" people etc. also has to be defended, as long as there wasn't a crime committed to obtain the information—because the Gawker article is just more speech, after all. It's speech that can have a negative effect on a person, but then so were the original postings he was being criticized for. I do think both violate some kind of a right to privacy, but I'm not really comfortable with unilateral disarmament, so to speak. I would be interested in some kind of broader privacy norm, if something coherent could be defined.
- nhebb 14y agoI read the Gawker piece [1] on Violentacrez, and I think saying that he was "simply sharing controversial photos" is a bit of an understatement. [1] http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the-biggest-troll-on-the-web http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the...
- OverlordXenu 14y agoJournalism isn't doxxing.