Helen Keller -
Her Socialist Years. Writings and Speeches
|
Tuesday, 3 March 2015
quote [ I thank God every day that Facebook and Twitter, instagram, vine, Youtube, all of it, did not exist when I went to High School. I can't imagine the dumb stuff I'd have been caught saying and doing.... ]
One kid is suspended from his college, another is fired from his part-time job with the Yankees. I'm kinda conflicted about this whole thing. Thoughts in the extended.
While the justice porn part of my brain is cheering, the part of my brain that sees this for the fact that I'm conflicted about doxxing. Anonymity is a privilege and not a right, of course, but when one does shitty, shitty things, that anonymity needs to go away, and that person must be responsible and face the consequences and repercussions from their shittiness.
|
LL said @ 5:30pm GMT on 4th March
I don't think standing on a soapbox in the park is the same as internet forums or twitter.
Twitter is not just speaking into nothingness like screaming in the park. You scream in the park and people ignore you. They all see your face. You go to internet forums and read twitter because you want to. I don't want to hear a guy standing on a box shouting in a park. :)
I've always felt uncomfortable with limiting speech, or drawing lines between what is considered hate speech and 'regular." Who determines the distinction and why? I found this looking for something addressing the legal and constitutional differences and definitions. Exposing people can be construed as no different than going to their house and stalking them. Or outing a gay person (if you believe homosexuality to be a sin). Which is also a no, no. doxxing is a prickly subject, I think.
#3. People like the fact that they can use the internet to have both a positive and negative impact on peoples lives. It empowers them, and there is something anarchistic/libertarian about being able to bury somebody in social media with no consequence, even though people are starting to not care if you know who they are.
Lastly, a culture of polarity lacking tolerance is what causes vigilante life ruining, cyber bullying, and hate speech. The technology just reflects what we are.
LL said @ 12:33pm GMT on 4th March
I don't think standing on a soapbox in the park is the same as internet forums or twitter.
Twitter is not just speaking into nothingness like screaming in the park. You scream in the park and people ignore you. They all see your face. You go to internet forums and read twitter because you want to. I don't want to hear a guy standing on a box shouting in a park. :)
I've always felt uncomfortable with limiting speech, or drawing lines between what is considered hate speech and 'regular." Who determines the distinction and why? I found this looking for something addressing the legal and constitutional differences and definitions. Exposing people can be construed as no different than going to their house and stalking them. Or outing a gay person (if you believe homosexuality to be a sin). Which is also a no, no. doxxing is a prickly subject, I think.
#3. People like the fact that they can use the internet to have both a positive and negative impact on peoples lives. It empowers them, and there is something anarchistic/libertarian about being able to bury somebody in social media with no consequence, even though people are starting to not care if you know who they are.
Lastly, a culture of polarity lacking tolerance is what causes vigilante life ruining, cyber bullying, and hate speech. People do it because they can. The technology just reflects what we are.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
LL said @ 5:30pm GMT on 4th March
I don't think standing on a soapbox in the park is the same as internet forums or twitter.
Twitter is not just speaking into nothingness like screaming in the park. You scream in the park and people ignore you. They all see your face. You go to internet forums and read twitter because you want to. I don't want to hear a guy standing on a box shouting in a park. :)
I've always felt uncomfortable with limiting speech, or drawing lines between what is considered hate speech and 'regular." Who determines the distinction and why? I found this looking for something addressing the legal and constitutional differences and definitions. Exposing people can be construed as no different than going to their house and stalking them. Or outing a gay person (if you believe homosexuality to be a sin). Which is also a no, no. doxxing is a prickly subject, I think.
#3. People like the fact that they can use the internet to have both a positive and negative impact on peoples lives. It empowers them, and there is something anarchistic/libertarian about being able to bury somebody in social media with no consequence, even though people are starting to not care if you know who they are.
Lastly, a culture of polarity lacking tolerance is what causes vigilante life ruining, cyber bullying, and hate speech. People do it because they can. The technology just reflects what we are.
