3 ms·

Historically you lose your right to free speech when you start making death threats. If you've read the news recently you'd see a lot of very violent stuff bei

by rtpg 13y ago

Historically you lose your right to free speech when you start making death threats. If you've read the news recently you'd see a lot of very violent stuff being thrown at people. Internet or not, people are not allowed to say they are going to rape your corpse and harass you over and over. So "using the State to bludgeon the offensive speakers" seems like a reasonable reaction to these people. Some of the stuff (that bomb threat twitter thing) is a bit much, but there's a limit to freedom of speech.

betterunix 13y ago
There are other ways: * Spam filters -- if we can spot viagra ads, we can spot rape threats. A paid moderator can review posts that are flagged by the filter but which are not actually threatening. * Charging people for the privilege to post comments on the site. You are free to make commentary on your blog if you do not want to pay, and a small fee (e.g. $5/yr) creates just enough of a speedbump to keep most trolls off the site. This can also help cover the cost of a paid moderator. * Upvote/downvote systems, though these tend to descend into mob rule / groupthink / downvote-because-I-disagree.
- rtpg 13y ago
  ok I don't think that the gov't should be moderating huffpo comments. Upvote/downvote stuff might be good at least for trolling stuff (but it too can be abused in the right situations). However, actions are actions. Just because it's easier to do something on the internet doesn't make it more legal. Obviously the seriousness of it all has to be judged , but if you're harrassing someone constantly on the internet (even if it's "just" making a bunch of online accounts and commenting extremely viley everywhere), you do not have my sympathy. If I were putting hateful messages into your (snail) mail box every day and sending your friends photoshopped pictures of you in compromising situations, would I be pardoned? Doing on the internet shouldn't either

by rtpg 13y ago

betterunix 13y ago

There are other ways: * Spam filters -- if we can spot viagra ads, we can spot rape threats. A paid moderator can review posts that are flagged by the filter but which are not actually threatening. * Charging people for the privilege to post comments on the site. You are free to make commentary on your blog if you do not want to pay, and a small fee (e.g. $5/yr) creates just enough of a speedbump to keep most trolls off the site. This can also help cover the cost of a paid moderator. * Upvote/downvote systems, though these tend to descend into mob rule / groupthink / downvote-because-I-disagree.

rtpg 13y ago
ok I don't think that the gov't should be moderating huffpo comments. Upvote/downvote stuff might be good at least for trolling stuff (but it too can be abused in the right situations). However, actions are actions. Just because it's easier to do something on the internet doesn't make it more legal. Obviously the seriousness of it all has to be judged , but if you're harrassing someone constantly on the internet (even if it's "just" making a bunch of online accounts and commenting extremely viley everywhere), you do not have my sympathy. If I were putting hateful messages into your (snail) mail box every day and sending your friends photoshopped pictures of you in compromising situations, would I be pardoned? Doing on the internet shouldn't either