Trolls and flamers are an unavoidable nuisance on this free medium; few would disagree with this. But what needs to be reaffirmed now is the absolute "sovereign right" of the Internet author to take every step at his disposal to insulate himself from these abusive efforts.
Comment sections are now a common feature on blogs and news services, and they have always been an integral part of the YouTube experience. YouTube viewers must create user accounts in order to comment on videos, so it's undeniable that YouTube and many other websites have increased their audiences by encouraging user "participation."
For those who post their own original videos on YouTube, the comment sections invariably represent a no win situation. Regardless of the quality of the content of one's videos, it is absolutely inevitable that some anonymous YouTubers will eventually invade the comment sections for the sole purpose of abusing -- NOT to offer dissent and disagreement, NOT to engage in meaningful discourse, but to slam both feet down and wage grotesque ad hominem rampages against the video owner. From the site's beginning, YouTube comment sections have been overrun by barely literate and overtly sociopathic maniacs.
Vicious, unsupported, and outright fabricated accusations permeate comment sections, as do vulgar abuse and name-calling, and sometimes physical threats. The video owner has the right to remove the offending comments; but of course, this requires that one actually take the time to wade through the comments, then make the tough call of whether it legitimately warrants removal. Or one can take the time to respond to negative comments. But this can represent a horrendous chore; high volume videos that are seen in the tens of thousands of times easily produce hundreds or even thousands of text comments. A video owner who tries to respond to every abusive or disingenuous comment will find himself wasting extraordinary amounts of time, for no benefit to himself other than an illusory sense of "winning" some inane argument.
...
I cannot state clearly enough that no one supports free and unfettered communication more than I. Anyone who disagrees with me or simply dislikes me personally is absolutely free to criticize me in any manner they see fit (though of course threats, libel, and defamation are NOT protected speech in ANY free society). I even the support the right of the lamentable clown above to publicly pine for his opportunity to punch my "fag face." What I do NOT support is the intellectually bankrupt notion that I AM OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE A MEDIUM ON WHICH HE CAN DO IT.
Stumble It!
Are you kidding me - what would be the point of a web forum without the ignorant rants and verbal abuse
Ummm, productive enlightening discourse? Intelligent debate of facts and opinions?
- you indeed are obligated to provide the space if you want to post something period case closed - you don't like it - well who cares you - see this is the logical extension of free speech.
Nope. I don't see where your right to free speech includes the right to be heard, or the right for me to open my wallet to hear you. There is no 'logical extension' of Free speech, because the 'right' to free speech (1982 Constitution, section 2(b)) is simply that Parliament will pass no law that "will be found to violate the freedom of expression where the law either has the purpose or effect of violating the right." and "A law will be found to restrict expression if it has the effect of frustrating "the pursuit of truth, participation in the community, or individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing".
But, I can't pass any laws, so it doesn't apply here. I've said it 100 times, the only one responsible for maintaining your rights and freedoms is . I can not, nor will I protect your right to what you deem as 'free speech' at the cost of my own rights.
free speech can indeed be offensive in point of fact it mostly is to soemone and as they Free speech is the right to be offensive - I would indulge more if I was the type but I find renting out space to abusive speech to be beneath me and I much prefer to be a popper of bubbles of delusion! There is an old saying you don't like manure don't feed the cow.
Where is your right to be offensive? If you were to start rants like the author describes, but on my front lawn or my living room - you'd get the Clint Eastwood/Gran Torino treatment. A gun in your face and a gentle "get off my lawn." There's another old saying, "a mans' house is his castle". And the courts actually agree. Why would a privately owned website be any different?
Society demands we interact with each other in a polite and friendly manner. This eases short term relationships by taking into consideration the feelings of others. Yet, some think this rule of society doesn't apply to the Internet, because you are faceless and anonymous. But, you really aren't. I really do think this also caries into real life, although some may not realize it.
I have no respect for those that log on just to slam and insult others, I see comments all the time attached to videos and blogs where people just throw out 1 or 2 word insults for the sake of being heard, my opinion is they should get a life as they aren't adding anything intelligent to the debate. There should be and soon will be I feel laws applying to the net in regards to hate and slander.
As much as I'm a proponent of free speach and people being allowed to voice their opinion I think that if it's illegal to spread hate messages and defame someones name in RL then it should be online as well (problem being the extremly huge communities online I know, and tracking down offenders)
Sadly due to these and other issues brought to light these days in regards to the net (child porn, exploitation of animals, cyber bullying ect...), I don't find it unbelievable that we will see a central governing body in regards to web content and some sort of "police force" to enforce their policies in the future.
While I continue to be objective and open minded when it comes to internet content, I do find myself avoiding sites like you tube/ebaumsworld just to avoid seeing what small minded silly people with nothing better to do are calling each other these days.
There should be and soon will be I feel laws applying to the net in regards to hate and slander.
As much as I'm a proponent of free speach and people being allowed to voice their opinion I think that if it's illegal to spread hate messages and defame someones name in RL then it should be online as well (problem being the extremly huge communities online I know, and tracking down offenders)
We don't need the Ministry of Truth running things in the internet. We are handling it ourselves. Most internet posters use a "nom de guerre" (a fictitious name), right Doc? So the defamation that goes on here, (on the web), is not the same as what happens in "real life". I've seen knock down drag out fights, (metaphorically speaking),in forums and in most cases the members of the forum developed and enforced their own rules of civillity. In one case the forum owner was exposed as a government psyop and the forum was taken down. But my point is we don't need anonymous people writing catch all rules and enforcing them with all the subtlety of a bulldozer.
Sadly due to these and other issues brought to light these days in regards to the net (child porn, exploitation of animals, cyber bullying ect...), I don't find it unbelievable that we will see a central governing body in regards to web content and some sort of "police force" to enforce their policies in the future.
Most of us internet denizens don't have anything to do with child porn or abusing animals or cyber bullying and using that as a reason to foist dictatorial laws on us all is just plain wrong. Making it illegal to communicate what you see as happening is just another way of locking "1984" and the "ministry of truth" into position.
Most internet posters use a "nom de guerre" (a fictitious name), right Doc?
I prefer "Nom de Plume", "Dr Caleb" is my 'pen name' on some sites as 'Mark Twain' was to Samuel Clemens. You and Choban use parts of your real name, but I had a 'close call' when I did use my real name on the Internet a very long time ago. Some guy from Texas showed up on the doorstep of a former apartment because he thought I emailed him a virus which destroyed his computer.
Luckily I recently moved. I never found out if he was 'packing' but it was entirely possible.
I too don't like having to legislate things like hate speech, but I can totally understand why. Mainly because it gives people like us who moderate forums a legal definition and a line that is not to be crossed. Beyond that, I think it's up to the owner of the website. If they want their website kosher and mentioning 'pork' is deemed inappropriate, so be it. "When in Rome!"
There should be and soon will be I feel laws applying to the net in regards to hate and slander.
As much as I'm a proponent of free speach and people being allowed to voice their opinion I think that if it's illegal to spread hate messages and defame someones name in RL then it should be online as well (problem being the extremly huge communities online I know, and tracking down offenders)
We don't need the Ministry of Truth running things in the internet. We are handling it ourselves. Most internet posters use a "nom de guerre" (a fictitious name), right Doc? So the defamation that goes on here, (on the web), is not the same as what happens in "real life". I've seen knock down drag out fights, (metaphorically speaking),in forums and in most cases the members of the forum developed and enforced their own rules of civillity. In one case the forum owner was exposed as a government psyop and the forum was taken down. But my point is we don't need anonymous people writing catch all rules and enforcing them with all the subtlety of a bulldozer.
Sadly due to these and other issues brought to light these days in regards to the net (child porn, exploitation of animals, cyber bullying ect...), I don't find it unbelievable that we will see a central governing body in regards to web content and some sort of "police force" to enforce their policies in the future.
Most of us internet denizens don't have anything to do with child porn or abusing animals or cyber bullying and using that as a reason to foist dictatorial laws on us all is just plain wrong. Making it illegal to communicate what you see as happening is just another way of locking "1984" and the "ministry of truth" into position.
You take me out of context, I in no way condone said steps/actions based on the principal that yes the net is a free and open venue for all to express thir opinions (as I and you have done here), meerly pointing out the way things can and probably will go (and honestly really are going with the copyright and cyber bullying cases we've seen) if lawmakers have their way.
Your right about the defamation as alot of us do use false names and tags to represent ourselves, and while you and others like me may not feel the need to have the internet poilced, mark my words that there are those out there that do and will if they can.
I also agree with you that the majority of net users aren't commiting the atrocities we see in the news like child porn ect, but neither are we the people in real life commiting crimes yet laws are applied to all because of the few yes or no?
So again don't get me wrong, I don't agree with it and I will rail against it but it probably will happen in my lifetime.
So again don't get me wrong, I don't agree with it and I will rail against it but it probably will happen in my lifetime.
I hate to agre with you, but I do. I remember the Internet before big business figured it was here. I remember the anger at seeing my first advertisement on a web page. (John Dvorak's column on PC Magazine, IIRC).
Now, Rupert Murdoch wants to charge for all online content for all his properties such as FOX news. The Associated Press wants to charge if you use more than 15 words from any story they publish (which isn't going so well). Bell and Comcast ISPs have broken the Internet by redirecting bad domain inquiries to their own 'search' engines.
I think it's come full circle. They realize the Internet was deigned for the free flow of information, and they don't like how that interferes with their god given right to profit. They will be the biggest bullies ever, if they are allowed to turn the internet into a for-profit entity.
It is good to clarify, my apologies for misinterpreting you.
No problem, sometimes it helps to have people do so, then I reread my posts and can clarify. Cheers
So again don't get me wrong, I don't agree with it and I will rail against it but it probably will happen in my lifetime.
I hate to agre with you, but I do. I remember the Internet before big business figured it was here. I remember the anger at seeing my first advertisement on a web page. (John Dvorak's column on PC Magazine, IIRC).
Now, Rupert Murdoch wants to charge for all online content for all his properties such as FOX news. The Associated Press wants to charge if you use more than 15 words from any story they publish (which isn't going so well). Bell and Comcast ISPs have broken the Internet by redirecting bad domain inquiries to their own 'search' engines.
I think it's come full circle. They realize the Internet was deigned for the free flow of information, and they don't like how that interferes with their god given right to profit. They will be the biggest bullies ever, if they are allowed to turn the internet into a for-profit entity.
Your right Caleb, big business is the worst culprit and unfortunatley goes hand in hand with government bozos imposing laws on us.
There is nothing free online anymore, hell even rates to access it have been increased what like 10 fold.
Case in point, copyright lobbyists are sutting down sites like the OLGA case (online guiter archive). It was a site I used regularly to print guitar music by popular bands, since this info was available at music stores for a price someone in the industry complained and they were sued for infringment. Now they got around it by having users submit the content and a disclaimer that all info is the users interpretation of the song, but if you want access to the majority of it or the options/services that used to be free (like printable versions) then you have to pay. This is just one such site that's had to adjust to government pressure about so called free information.
I tell yah, if they REALLY want to make $ off the net they should tax the porn sites, those guys make a killing anyways.
Your right Caleb, big business is the worst culprit and unfortunatley goes hand in hand with government bozos imposing laws on us.
There is nothing free online anymore, hell even rates to access it have been increased what like 10 fold.
Case in point, copyright lobbyists are sutting down sites like the OLGA case (online guiter archive). It was a site I used regularly to print guitar music by popular bands, since this info was available at music stores for a price someone in the industry complained and they were sued for infringment. Now they got around it by having users submit the content and a disclaimer that all info is the users interpretation of the song, but if you want access to the majority of it or the options/services that used to be free (like printable versions) then you have to pay. This is just one such site that's had to adjust to government pressure about so called free information.
The Internet sees censorship as an error, and routes around it.
http://www.tuxguitar.com.ar/
http://www.tabscout.com/
Once upon a time, performers had to perform to earn a living. The copyright on their songs would eventually expire. Jimi Hendrix earns a healthy income, 40 years after his death. It's just wrong.
Even new recordings of Bach and Beethoven are copywritten, and their estates get nothing. It's just twisted!
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit.
- The Judge, "Life-Line" by Robert Heinlien
I tell yah, if they REALLY want to make $ off the net they should tax the porn sites, those guys make a killing anyways.
Porn is the #1 industry. To me, it's pure capitalism. You get what you want, at a fair price. They know their industry, and they prosper. I think it's irony though that in the printed book world, that "The Joy of Cooking" has outsold "The Joy of Sex" something like 3:1.
Another indicator of an aging population?
And yes, the right wing goon squads are gathering everywhere on the internet. A sign that they are worried. Progressives simply have to stop being so naive and "nice guy", I think. Where they raised their heads in this particular kind of way, designed to intimidate other folks, they should simply be squished by barring them out of the loop.
These guys prey on nice folks, viewing them as weak. And often they are right, unfortunately.
Coyote
Expressing opinions, or any communications, are the same responsibility as we have in any other field in our lives. We don't drive around without licence plates, or cover our faces with masks on the streets. Therefore anybody who has anything to say should say it, taking full responsibility for every word, without hiding behind false names.
Roll on the day, when people have the guts to stand up and speak freely, without hiding in the bushes, like children, or criminals.
If we can't write letters to the papers while hiding behind phony names, why should anybody be able do it on the Net?
Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.
And yes, the right wing goon squads are gathering everywhere on the internet. A sign that they are worried. Progressives simply have to stop being so naive and "nice guy", I think. Where they raised their heads in this particular kind of way, designed to intimidate other folks, they should simply be squished by barring them out of the loop.
Sorry, but I spent years on USENET, and many of the nastiest, most demeaning posters came from the left side of the spectrum. I don't know where your image of the "meek and mild" left-wing commentator comes from, but obviously you've spent time on a different part of the Net from me.
Right-wing posters do tend to be more angry and aggressive, while left-wing posters tend to be smug, passive-aggressive and self-righteous. The left-wingers also tend to be fond of questioning the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with them, as if it were impossible in their eyes for an intelligent, thoughtful person to come to different conclusions than they about the roles of government and the market, law and order, social programs, gun control or the distribution of wealth.
That is not to say there are not stupid, ignorant or vicious right-wingers. But the left has its share of such people too, as does humanity in general.