Electronic society - yay or nay?

[GLASSJAW]

the problem with EX Bert Worshipper's post, in my opinion, is that it doesn't even seem like a criticism of the internet so much as a criticism of laws in relation to the internet, or the lack of. Many laws are outdated or totally blurry about what can or can't be said online, or what can or can't be done online. And that allows people to do and say what they want. Why are consequences only "real" when face-to-face, should be the question, not "should we unplug the internet?"

Think of that recent case from the cess pit Reddit, for example, and that Michael Brutsch character, who ran numerous subforums dedicated to candid shots of women bending over, etc. This guy was considered the biggest (and most 'influential') troll on one of the biggest and most influential forums on the internet. Even OBAMA was on there not too long ago. After Brutsch's identity was revealed by Gawker, he was fired from his job, marked by most as a total creep, and I'm sure ostracized from the few friends he actually had. Except online. Many people in the (ugh) Reddit community think his actions (on the forums) are okay if not justifable because it's "freedom of speech." I'm not up on my laws and codes in the states, but from what I've gathered on the subject, the language is extremely archaic and difficult to translate into modern terms, and therefore Brutsch's actions--regardless of how morally repulsive we may find them--are perceived as (if not actually being) totally legal.

One of Brutsch's friends on the forum was a teacher who would snap photos of his students. He was fired. I have no idea if any lawsuits were filed, though.

The New Yorker recently discussed all this, and hinted at the irony Brutsch now trying to hire a lawyer to sue Gawker for an invasion of privacy, after Gawker released his identity and labelled him a total creep for posting photos of all sorts of unwilling and unknowing girls on one of the biggest websites on the internet.

This idea that the internet breeds contempt, to me, seems wrong. People are inherently disgusting and mischievious, if not malevolent; except on CDC, where goodness and purity and self righteousness abound, of course.

[c00kies]

It's a great place if you visit the right sites, talk with the right people, don't get too upset when someone tries to coerce you into a dumb argument, and most importantly don't take it too seriously.

[Jai604]

Things aren't bad (from drugs to the internet, it doesn't really matter). Things are just things. The internet doesn't hurt people, anymore than a poppy does.

PEOPLE are the issue.

[Buddhas Hand]

the problem with EX Bert Worshipper's post, in my opinion, is that it doesn't even seem like a criticism of the internet so much as a criticism of laws in relation to the internet, or the lack of. Many laws are outdated or totally blurry about what can or can't be said online, or what can or can't be done online. And that allows people to do and say what they want. Why are consequences only "real" when face-to-face, should be the question, not "should we unplug the internet?"

Think of that recent case from the cess pit Reddit, for example, and that Michael Brutsch character, who ran numerous subforums dedicated to candid shots of women bending over, etc. This guy was considered the biggest (and most 'influential') troll on one of the biggest and most influential forums on the internet. Even OBAMA was on there not too long ago. After Brutsch's identity was revealed by Gawker, he was fired from his job, marked by most as a total creep, and I'm sure ostracized from the few friends he actually had. Except online. Many people in the (ugh) Reddit community think his actions (on the forums) are okay if not justifable because it's "freedom of speech." I'm not up on my laws and codes in the states, but from what I've gathered on the subject, the language is extremely archaic and difficult to translate into modern terms, and therefore Brutsch's actions--regardless of how morally repulsive we may find them--are perceived as (if not actually being) totally legal.

One of Brutsch's friends on the forum was a teacher who would snap photos of his students. He was fired. I have no idea if any lawsuits were filed, though.

The New Yorker recently discussed all this, and hinted at the irony Brutsch now trying to hire a lawyer to sue Gawker for an invasion of privacy, after Gawker released his identity and labelled him a total creep for posting photos of all sorts of unwilling and unknowing girls on one of the biggest websites on the internet.

This idea that the internet breeds contempt, to me, seems wrong. People are inherently disgusting and mischievious, if not malevolent; except on CDC, where goodness and purity and self righteousness abound, of course.

[EX_Bert_Worshipper]

the problem with EX Bert Worshipper's post, in my opinion, is that it doesn't even seem like a criticism of the internet so much as a criticism of laws in relation to the internet, or the lack of. Many laws are outdated or totally blurry about what can or can't be said online, or what can or can't be done online. And that allows people to do and say what they want. Why are consequences only "real" when face-to-face, should be the question, not "should we unplug the internet?"

Think of that recent case from the cess pit Reddit, for example, and that Michael Brutsch character, who ran numerous subforums dedicated to candid shots of women bending over, etc. This guy was considered the biggest (and most 'influential') troll on one of the biggest and most influential forums on the internet. Even OBAMA was on there not too long ago. After Brutsch's identity was revealed by Gawker, he was fired from his job, marked by most as a total creep, and I'm sure ostracized from the few friends he actually had. Except online. Many people in the (ugh) Reddit community think his actions (on the forums) are okay if not justifable because it's "freedom of speech." I'm not up on my laws and codes in the states, but from what I've gathered on the subject, the language is extremely archaic and difficult to translate into modern terms, and therefore Brutsch's actions--regardless of how morally repulsive we may find them--are perceived as (if not actually being) totally legal.

One of Brutsch's friends on the forum was a teacher who would snap photos of his students. He was fired. I have no idea if any lawsuits were filed, though.

The New Yorker recently discussed all this, and hinted at the irony Brutsch now trying to hire a lawyer to sue Gawker for an invasion of privacy, after Gawker released his identity and labelled him a total creep for posting photos of all sorts of unwilling and unknowing girls on one of the biggest websites on the internet.

This idea that the internet breeds contempt, to me, seems wrong. People are inherently disgusting and mischievious, if not malevolent; except on CDC, where goodness and purity and self righteousness abound, of course.