Conquer Club

Should we have more laws (fewer?) limiting what is put on the web? Should web rules be the same as or different from laws on print media?

Some laws I like:
no posting pictures of dead bodies (aside from certain "mass casualty" events not in closeup) without permission of family or prior permission of the deceased.

Anti bullying (needs to be evaluated constantly, but roughly akin to anti libel laws).

A law I would like (though doubt it will happen): Scientific information has to be "vetted" or is clearly labeled "just opinion". I have no problem per se with people posting their own ideas, be it that aliens are causing cancer or whatever (Who knows? Some "poppycock" ideas wind up being correct). However, they have to go through the process of actually proving their ideas valid. I DO have a problem when they can create a site that kids, even adults cannot distinguish from real, verified, science.

whitestazn88 wrote:Should we have more laws (fewer?) limiting what is put on the web? Should web rules be the same as or different from laws on print media?

Tough question.

whitestazn88 wrote:Some laws I like:
no posting pictures of dead bodies (aside from certain "mass casualty" events not in closeup) without permission of family or prior permission of the deceased.

Yes, this seems to make sense to me, as well.

whitestazn88 wrote:Anti bullying (needs to be evaluated constantly, but roughly akin to anti libel laws).

I think this really has to be looked at from a tough point of view. This is becoming a pretty serious problem, because by doing it online, it's kept "hidden" from many of the people who would do something about it "in the real world". Very insidious.

whitestazn88 wrote:A law I would like (though doubt it will happen): Scientific information has to be "vetted" or is clearly labeled "just opinion". I have no problem per se with people posting their own ideas, be it that aliens are causing cancer or whatever (Who knows? Some "poppycock" ideas wind up being correct). However, they have to go through the process of actually proving their ideas valid. I DO have a problem when they can create a site that kids, even adults cannot distinguish from real, verified, science.

I certainly don't disagree with your opinion of this, as far as what I'd LIKE to see. In other words, I wish this would happen voluntarily (yeah, I know better). However, I'm not sure that's a valid thought from a freedom perspective, law-wise. As much as I hate this kind of utter drek being so readily available and in a manner that's truly deceptive, it seems to me that it is up to the individual to do their research rather than simply relying on one or two websites for their information on a particular subject.

Why am I quoted in this thread, Woodruff? I think you got a bit confused or something.....

patches70 wrote:Why am I quoted in this thread, Woodruff? I think you got a bit confused or something.....

Whoops! Must've been a leftover in my "ctrl-v" from the last thread. Sorry about that! (Fixing now...)

whitestazn88 wrote:no posting pictures of dead bodies (aside from certain "mass casualty" events not in closeup) without permission of family or prior permission of the deceased.

why? they're dead and we're all going to die anyway.

I wouldn't have a problem with someone posting pics of my dead relatives. At least I don't think I would.

Army of GOD wrote:

whitestazn88 wrote:no posting pictures of dead bodies (aside from certain "mass casualty" events not in closeup) without permission of family or prior permission of the deceased.

why? they're dead and we're all going to die anyway.

I wouldn't have a problem with someone posting pics of my dead relatives. At least I don't think I would.

I can imagine it would be an extremely traumatic thing for a wife to see her dead husband on television before she had found out that he was dead.

whitestazn88 wrote:Should we have more laws (fewer?) limiting what is put on the web? Should web rules be the same as or different from laws on print media?

Some laws I like:
no posting pictures of dead bodies (aside from certain "mass casualty" events not in closeup) without permission of family or prior permission of the deceased.

Anti bullying (needs to be evaluated constantly, but roughly akin to anti libel laws).

A law I would like (though doubt it will happen): Scientific information has to be "vetted" or is clearly labeled "just opinion". I have no problem per se with people posting their own ideas, be it that aliens are causing cancer or whatever (Who knows? Some "poppycock" ideas wind up being correct). However, they have to go through the process of actually proving their ideas valid. I DO have a problem when they can create a site that kids, even adults cannot distinguish from real, verified, science.

Nah, I don't like any of that. And it's too costly to enforce for too little benefit.

I enjoy the rules already on the Internet, the informal rules which are created, enforced, and changed by billions of internet users. (call it: spontaneous order).

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Nah, I don't like any of that. And it's too costly to enforce for too little benefit.

I enjoy the rules already on the Internet, the informal rules which are created, enforced, and changed by billions of internet users. (call it: spontaneous order).

THE INTERNET'S INVISIBLE HAND!! IT'S TOUCHED BBS!!

BBS, do you need to talk about it? Where on the Jack Nicholsaur did it touch you?

--------------------------

I'd be down for more strict enforcement of anti-bullying laws. Some people are way too comfortable being able to bully others online.

-rd

I'm with BBS on this one. INTERNET ANARCHY FTW!!!

rdsrds2120 wrote:I'd be down for more strict enforcement of anti-bullying laws. Some people are way too comfortable being able to bully others online.

-rd

What constitutes as bullying to you? Or rather what constitutes as bullying that should be illegal?

I see any such potential laws as being very dangerous, way too much grey area.

rdsrds2120 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Nah, I don't like any of that. And it's too costly to enforce for too little benefit.

I enjoy the rules already on the Internet, the informal rules which are created, enforced, and changed by billions of internet users. (call it: spontaneous order).

THE INTERNET'S INVISIBLE HAND!! IT'S TOUCHED BBS!!

BBS, do you need to talk about it? Where on the Jack Nicholsaur did it touch you?

--------------------------

I'd be down for more strict enforcement of anti-bullying laws. Some people are way too comfortable being able to bully others online.

-rd

The Internet provides many users an extremely valuable tool: thicker skin.


And what Haggis says. Benefits of such laws won't offset the costs.

rdsrds2120 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Nah, I don't like any of that. And it's too costly to enforce for too little benefit.

I enjoy the rules already on the Internet, the informal rules which are created, enforced, and changed by billions of internet users. (call it: spontaneous order).

THE INTERNET'S INVISIBLE HAND!! IT'S TOUCHED BBS!!

BBS, do you need to talk about it? Where on the Jack Nicholsaur did it touch you?

--------------------------

I'd be down for more strict enforcement of anti-bullying laws. Some people are way too comfortable being able to bully others online.

-rd

Also, the format of your post is giving me deja-vu, or it might be a mismatch in the memory department of my brain. I'll have to hold a talk with the Committee later tonight.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:I'm with BBS on this one. INTERNET ANARCHY FTW!!!

rdsrds2120 wrote:I'd be down for more strict enforcement of anti-bullying laws. Some people are way too comfortable being able to bully others online.

-rd

What constitutes as bullying to you? Or rather what constitutes as bullying that should be illegal?

I see any such potential laws as being very dangerous, way too much grey area.

After saying it, I realize that "law" might not have been the best choice of words. Also, this is how I would define internet bullying (non-exhaustive): cyber-harrassment, death threats, repeated unwarranted approaches, LGBT bashing, your basic bullying package.

The Internet provides many users an extremely valuable tool: thicker skin.

Please forward this to the parents, family members, and friends of teens who have committed suicide as a result of online bullying.

-rd

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:I'm with BBS on this one. INTERNET ANARCHY FTW!!!

rdsrds2120 wrote:I'd be down for more strict enforcement of anti-bullying laws. Some people are way too comfortable being able to bully others online.

-rd

What constitutes as bullying to you? Or rather what constitutes as bullying that should be illegal?

I see any such potential laws as being very dangerous, way too much grey area.

After saying it, I realize that "law" might not have been the best choice of words. Also, this is how I would define internet bullying (non-exhaustive): cyber-harrassment, death threats, repeated unwarranted approaches, LGBT bashing, your basic bullying package.

The Internet provides many users an extremely valuable tool: thicker skin.

Please forward this to the parents, family members, and friends of teens who have committed suicide as a result of online bullying.

-rd

Aye, well put. The idea that society should just toughen up and take whatever comes from people on the internet simply because they did it via the internet is dumb.

Self censorship should suffice. And If you don't like what some publish, say, avoid those contents.

It's been a great trip so far, in only 20 years we've gone from a few text based apps to an amazing wealth of graphic apps, including biometrics and dna analizing and all that. From thinking about something and have to stop right there or go to the library and cross reference 20 books in order to find the outdated answer you were looking for, to simply typing it in in a search site that corrects the spelling, suggest options and, when you know exactly what your looking for, tells you what most people have found useful.

Let it be govern itself.

nietzsche wrote:Self censorship should suffice. And If you don't like what some publish, say, avoid those contents.

It's been a great trip so far, in only 20 years we've gone from text based apps to an amazing wealth of graphic apps, including biometrics and dna analizing and all that. From thinking about something and have to stop right there or go to the library, and cross reference 20 books in order to find the outdated answer you were looking for, to simply typing it in in a search site that corrects the spelling, suggest options and when you know exactly what your looking for, it tells you what most people have found usefull/correct.

Let it be govern itself.

What would you suggest when self-censorship fails? I appreciate what you're saying other than that- I've spent too long looking at the problems governments and religions had with print back in the day to think that there isn't a need for an adjustment, but I don't see anarchy as the way forward either.

rdsrds2120 wrote:

The Internet provides many users an extremely valuable tool: thicker skin.

Please forward this to the parents, family members, and friends of teens who have committed suicide as a result of online bullying.

-rd

Well, ok, not all of them.

rdsrds2120 wrote:After saying it, I realize that "law" might not have been the best choice of words. Also, this is how I would define internet bullying (non-exhaustive): cyber-harrassment, death threats, repeated unwarranted approaches, LGBT bashing, your basic bullying package.

But many of these things are very different from their RL equivalent.

Me following you around and talking shit to you repeatedly in RL = harrasment.

Woody calling scotty an idiot in every thread on the forum != harrasment. After all the remedy is as simple as hitting an ignore button or blocking someone's emails.

As long as the "bullying" stays focused on your online alter-ego and not your real person, I don't really see a problem.

Symmetry wrote:Aye, well put. The idea that society should just toughen up and take whatever comes from people on the internet simply because they did it via the internet is dumb.

Sure, there are limits to everything. But I do think people need to grow some thicker skin in general. The number of silly things people get upset over seems way too high. I don't like that saying "that's offensive" is becoming a conversation stopper similar to "it's my faith".

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Aye, well put. The idea that society should just toughen up and take whatever comes from people on the internet simply because they did it via the internet is dumb.

Sure, there are limits to everything. But I do think people need to grow some thicker skin in general. The number of silly things people get upset over seems way too high. I don't like that saying "that's offensive" is becoming a conversation stopper similar to "it's my faith".

But essentially you're arguing for a less lawful society, no? That certain things which are currently acknowledged as crimes- say anonymous death threats, theft of private information or property, destruction of property, etc. should simply be accepted as the new norm. Isn't that essentially a passive acceptance of crime, indeed an argument for its tolerance, akin to "You've moved to a bad neighbourhood, you should accept that you're going to be mugged" as an argument as opposed to "Yeah, that's a difficult neignbourhood, we should do something to make it better".

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:After saying it, I realize that "law" might not have been the best choice of words. Also, this is how I would define internet bullying (non-exhaustive): cyber-harrassment, death threats, repeated unwarranted approaches, LGBT bashing, your basic bullying package.

But many of these things are very different from their RL equivalent.

Me following you around and talking shit to you repeatedly in RL = harrasment.

Woody calling scotty an idiot in every thread on the forum != harrasment. After all the remedy is as simple as hitting an ignore button or blocking someone's emails.

As long as the "bullying" stays focused on your online alter-ego and not your real person, I don't really see a problem.

Symmetry wrote:Aye, well put. The idea that society should just toughen up and take whatever comes from people on the internet simply because they did it via the internet is dumb.

Sure, there are limits to everything. But I do think people need to grow some thicker skin in general. The number of silly things people get upset over seems way too high. I don't like that saying "that's offensive" is becoming a conversation stopper similar to "it's my faith".

The fact that you can infer that difference kind of helps a different point -- most people can tell what's bullying and what isn't. It's mostly when approached with an individual case that it's silly. In any event, I'd much rather enforce anti-bullying and prevent something from happening instead of the opposite.

-rd

rdsrds2120 wrote:The fact that you can infer that difference kind of helps a different point -- most people can tell what's bullying and what isn't. It's mostly when approached with an individual case that it's silly. In any event, I'd much rather enforce anti-bullying and prevent something from happening instead of the opposite.

-rd

Better safe than sorry? Isn't that the exact type of thinking that leads to old ladies getting molested by TSA agents in airports?

Safe doesn't come free either. In this case it seems impossible to remove the bullying without also removing at least some of the freedom we have on the internet.

Symmetry wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Aye, well put. The idea that society should just toughen up and take whatever comes from people on the internet simply because they did it via the internet is dumb.

Sure, there are limits to everything. But I do think people need to grow some thicker skin in general. The number of silly things people get upset over seems way too high. I don't like that saying "that's offensive" is becoming a conversation stopper similar to "it's my faith".

But essentially you're arguing for a less lawful society, no? That certain things which are currently acknowledged as crimes- say anonymous death threats, theft of private information or property, destruction of property, etc. should simply be accepted as the new norm. Isn't that essentially a passive acceptance of crime, indeed an argument for its tolerance, akin to "You've moved to a bad neighbourhood, you should accept that you're going to be mugged" as an argument as opposed to "Yeah, that's a difficult neignbourhood, we should do something to make it better".

Wait, I thought we were talking about extending anti-bullying laws rather than diminishing them. If it gets to the stage of realistic death threats or guys on 4chan posting my RL address and saying they're gonna hack into the police system and send a SWAT team to my home (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting), then I'd say we're definitely past the "take it like a man" stage.

However, as I said above, it's a matter of degree. We will be trading something in exchange for the extra safety. And there's a significant difference between an actual death threat and your typical internet death threat. For the former , you call the cops, for the latter, you do this

Haggis_McMutton wrote:However, as I said above, it's a matter of degree. We will be trading something in exchange for the extra safety. And there's a significant difference between an actual death threat and your typical internet death threat. For the former , you call the cops, for the latter, you do this

How do you know if it's the real thing or not until it isn't...or it is?

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:The fact that you can infer that difference kind of helps a different point -- most people can tell what's bullying and what isn't. It's mostly when approached with an individual case that it's silly. In any event, I'd much rather enforce anti-bullying and prevent something from happening instead of the opposite.

-rd

Better safe than sorry? Isn't that the exact type of thinking that leads to old ladies getting molested by TSA agents in airports?

Safe doesn't come free either. In this case it seems impossible to remove the bullying without also removing at least some of the freedom we have on the internet.

Symmetry wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Aye, well put. The idea that society should just toughen up and take whatever comes from people on the internet simply because they did it via the internet is dumb.

Sure, there are limits to everything. But I do think people need to grow some thicker skin in general. The number of silly things people get upset over seems way too high. I don't like that saying "that's offensive" is becoming a conversation stopper similar to "it's my faith".

But essentially you're arguing for a less lawful society, no? That certain things which are currently acknowledged as crimes- say anonymous death threats, theft of private information or property, destruction of property, etc. should simply be accepted as the new norm. Isn't that essentially a passive acceptance of crime, indeed an argument for its tolerance, akin to "You've moved to a bad neighbourhood, you should accept that you're going to be mugged" as an argument as opposed to "Yeah, that's a difficult neignbourhood, we should do something to make it better".

Wait, I thought we were talking about extending anti-bullying laws rather than diminishing them. If it gets to the stage of realistic death threats or guys on 4chan posting my RL address and saying they're gonna hack into the police system and send a SWAT team to my home (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting), then I'd say we're definitely past the "take it like a man" stage.

However, as I said above, it's a matter of degree. We will be trading something in exchange for the extra safety. And there's a significant difference between an actual death threat and your typical internet death threat. For the former , you call the cops, for the latter, you do this

Fair point, and wires may well have been crossed on the specifics. I think there's a fair argument to be made on the curtailment of internet speech, but that it won't be the same sort of curtailment currently present for print.

I don't mean that it will be more or less (although I think it will be more complex), but I do think that simply saying that old laws don't apply doesn't mean that new laws won't, or shouldn't.

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:I'm with BBS on this one. INTERNET ANARCHY FTW!!!

rdsrds2120 wrote:I'd be down for more strict enforcement of anti-bullying laws. Some people are way too comfortable being able to bully others online.

-rd

What constitutes as bullying to you? Or rather what constitutes as bullying that should be illegal?

I see any such potential laws as being very dangerous, way too much grey area.

After saying it, I realize that "law" might not have been the best choice of words. Also, this is how I would define internet bullying (non-exhaustive): cyber-harrassment, death threats, repeated unwarranted approaches, LGBT bashing, your basic bullying package.

The Internet provides many users an extremely valuable tool: thicker skin.

Please forward this to the parents, family members, and friends of teens who have committed suicide as a result of online bullying.

-rd

Life can be rough. Learning to deal with others and with your self are necessary skills to be gained. If one fails at this, then it's not necessarily the fault of that individual or the aggressor, who both to some degree are responsible. The peer groups and parents also matter, so if cyber-bullying leads to a death, I don't think it's wise to demand top-down laws (i.e. legislation) to rein in a few unruly people on the Internet because there are other means to deal with this problem:



(1) If anything, this reaction from cyber-bullying can lead to another unplanned change in the spontaneous order of the Internet. The cultural attitudes against such bullying create informal rules whereby others, if they deem such rules to be mutually beneficial, will adopt them and maybe encourage others to do the same. So, in this case, it's not like nothing is being done to correct cyber-bullying. The correction mechanism is difficult to realize since the outcome is "not of human design but of human action."

(2) Then, peer groups and parents are alerted to this phenomenon, which in turn can help to mitigate the drastic effects of cyber-bullying and what not, because they're more aware of this possibility.

Given (1) and (2), and humanity's ability to innovate, I don't see a need for laws--presumably legislated and enforced by a government, because others would simply create their own (informal) and perhaps formal laws. (One example: Forum Rules, no bigotry or hateful comments, etc.).

Symmetry wrote:

nietzsche wrote:Self censorship should suffice. And If you don't like what some publish, say, avoid those contents.

It's been a great trip so far, in only 20 years we've gone from text based apps to an amazing wealth of graphic apps, including biometrics and dna analizing and all that. From thinking about something and have to stop right there or go to the library, and cross reference 20 books in order to find the outdated answer you were looking for, to simply typing it in in a search site that corrects the spelling, suggest options and when you know exactly what your looking for, it tells you what most people have found usefull/correct.

Let it be govern itself.

What would you suggest when self-censorship fails? I appreciate what you're saying other than that- I've spent too long looking at the problems governments and religions had with print back in the day to think that there isn't a need for an adjustment, but I don't see anarchy as the way forward either.

I guess the Internet is a backwards place for you? It's definitely a social order that is anarchistic.

Symmetry wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Aye, well put. The idea that society should just toughen up and take whatever comes from people on the internet simply because they did it via the internet is dumb.

Sure, there are limits to everything. But I do think people need to grow some thicker skin in general. The number of silly things people get upset over seems way too high. I don't like that saying "that's offensive" is becoming a conversation stopper similar to "it's my faith".

But essentially you're arguing for a less lawful society, no? That certain things which are currently acknowledged as crimes- say anonymous death threats, theft of private information or property, destruction of property, etc. should simply be accepted as the new norm. Isn't that essentially a passive acceptance of crime, indeed an argument for its tolerance, akin to "You've moved to a bad neighbourhood, you should accept that you're going to be mugged" as an argument as opposed to "Yeah, that's a difficult neignbourhood, we should do something to make it better".

Actually, he isn't. Simply because there's no government, it does not follow that there are no rules or law.