4 ms·
Just to be clear, I don't really take issue with anything they said. Everything quoted in the article was the same locker room bullshit and wishful thinking th
by prospero 18y ago
Just to be clear, I don't really take issue with anything they said. Everything quoted in the article was the same locker room bullshit and wishful thinking that's been around since forever, and I don't buy that moving it to a permanent medium necessarily makes it a scourge on society.
But it's just plain dumb to give self-important law students a chance to flex their legal muscles. I don't think the fallout was warranted, but it was obviously coming.
- madmanslitany 18y agoI don't think it's the permanence that changes things, it's the visibility. Gossip about you from high school isn't that likely to turn up when you move out of your hometown to the big city, for instance. I don't really think that most of what they said is anything special, no--you're right, it's bullshit. But I think you're underestimating how many people take this kind of bullshit seriously, and I think that's a problem in and of itself.
- jcl 18y agoI don't think it's the permanence that changes things, it's the visibility. This is what confused me most about the whole case. As the article says: "Many other websites control extremely salacious material either by using special coding to keep it to themselves (so that Google doesn’t pick it up)..." The major issue wasn't merely that there were false statements being issued, but that they were high on the Google results for the laywers' names. Why didn't the website merely turn off Google indexing for the problem forums?