4 ms·

If people routinely say things online that they wouldn't say in a public, real-life conversation, maybe we shouldn't apply the same standards to both kinds of c

by morsch 13y ago

If people routinely say things online that they wouldn't say in a public, real-life conversation, maybe we shouldn't apply the same standards to both kinds of communication. (FWIW I think people say similar things all the time in real-life conversations, but probably only in a private context. There are far fewer private conversations on the modern Internet.) I think the real problem is that in those rare circumstances where someone follows up on their stupid threats, everybody gets in a hissy fit that the warning signs were ignored. The warning signs should be ignored because following up on them is not compatible with a free society, not to mention it being both a slippery slope and a drain on resources better spent otherwise.

laumars 13y ago
> If people routinely say things online that they wouldn't say in a public, real-life conversation, maybe we shouldn't apply the same standards to both kinds of communication. One of the things I hate is when people say "it's ok to do xyz as the internet isn't real life". eg cyber-bullying can be just as emotionally harmful as saying such comments in real life. While I love how empowering the internet can be, people need to stop treating it like a justification for being dickheads. > (FWIW I think people say similar things all the time in real-life conversations, but probably only in a private context. There are far fewer private conversations on the modern Internet.)* I don't agree with that. You have e-mails, instant messengers, PMs on forums, Facebook, etc. There's even the ability to create private chat rooms on nearly all chat protocols. In fact there's more ways to start a private conversation between friends than there is to share content with strangers. > I think the real problem is that in those rare circumstances where someone follows up on their stupid threats, everybody gets in a hissy fit that the warning signs were ignored. The warning signs should be ignored because following up on them is not compatible with a free society, not to mention it being both a slippery slope and a drain on resources better spent otherwise. You make some interesting / good points there. Not sure if I agree with them - but I don't disagree either. It's definitely something I'll have to think deeper about.
- morsch 13y ago
  Well, if enough people agree with the statement it's ok to do xyz as the internet isn't real life (or implicitly agree with by behaving in such a manner), then it seems to me to be a reasonable default position to take. You and I might disagree, but that's just two data points. We probably shouldn't legislate or even feel too smug about our minority taste, as much as it is a minority taste. Regarding private conversations, I agree that the internet offers the capability to have private conversations, but I'm arguing that the medium tends toward people having fewer of them nevertheless. Of course, private conversation is not well-defined. I'd argue that a exchanging slurs between members of a sports team is more private than doing the same between virtual strangers on a CODBLOPS server; that mobbing during lunch break is more private than mobbing on Facebook; that a confidential conversation between friends is more private than an email stored for potentially forever.
  - laumars 13y ago
    > Well, if enough people agree with the statement it's ok to do xyz as the internet isn't real life (or implicitly agree with by behaving in such a manner), then it seems to me to be a reasonable default position to take. You and I might disagree, but that's just two data points. We probably shouldn't legislate or even feel too smug about our minority taste, as much as it is a minority taste. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. But I do appreciate your point :) > Regarding private conversations, I agree that the internet offers the capability to have private conversations, but I'm arguing that the medium tends toward people having fewer of them nevertheless. That's a good point. And I think you're right.

by morsch 13y ago

laumars 13y ago

> If people routinely say things online that they wouldn't say in a public, real-life conversation, maybe we shouldn't apply the same standards to both kinds of communication. One of the things I hate is when people say "it's ok to do xyz as the internet isn't real life". eg cyber-bullying can be just as emotionally harmful as saying such comments in real life. While I love how empowering the internet can be, people need to stop treating it like a justification for being dickheads. > (FWIW I think people say similar things all the time in real-life conversations, but probably only in a private context. There are far fewer private conversations on the modern Internet.)* I don't agree with that. You have e-mails, instant messengers, PMs on forums, Facebook, etc. There's even the ability to create private chat rooms on nearly all chat protocols. In fact there's more ways to start a private conversation between friends than there is to share content with strangers. > I think the real problem is that in those rare circumstances where someone follows up on their stupid threats, everybody gets in a hissy fit that the warning signs were ignored. The warning signs should be ignored because following up on them is not compatible with a free society, not to mention it being both a slippery slope and a drain on resources better spent otherwise. You make some interesting / good points there. Not sure if I agree with them - but I don't disagree either. It's definitely something I'll have to think deeper about.

morsch 13y ago
Well, if enough people agree with the statement it's ok to do xyz as the internet isn't real life (or implicitly agree with by behaving in such a manner), then it seems to me to be a reasonable default position to take. You and I might disagree, but that's just two data points. We probably shouldn't legislate or even feel too smug about our minority taste, as much as it is a minority taste. Regarding private conversations, I agree that the internet offers the capability to have private conversations, but I'm arguing that the medium tends toward people having fewer of them nevertheless. Of course, private conversation is not well-defined. I'd argue that a exchanging slurs between members of a sports team is more private than doing the same between virtual strangers on a CODBLOPS server; that mobbing during lunch break is more private than mobbing on Facebook; that a confidential conversation between friends is more private than an email stored for potentially forever.
- laumars 13y ago
  > Well, if enough people agree with the statement it's ok to do xyz as the internet isn't real life (or implicitly agree with by behaving in such a manner), then it seems to me to be a reasonable default position to take. You and I might disagree, but that's just two data points. We probably shouldn't legislate or even feel too smug about our minority taste, as much as it is a minority taste. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. But I do appreciate your point :) > Regarding private conversations, I agree that the internet offers the capability to have private conversations, but I'm arguing that the medium tends toward people having fewer of them nevertheless. That's a good point. And I think you're right.