"No, it means that you have some childish fuckwit hogging hours of modem time on a system with a single phone line."
Just kick them off, then. I'm not saying I'm against that, I'm just saying that getting law enforcement involved (yes, I know that didn't happen in this case) or being extremely oversensitive is both idiotic and doesn't help. Really, just forbid these people from using it.
"Dude, you're out of line here because you obviously (obviously!) don't understand what those days were like."
I know it was slow. Really slow. Things that they find offensive and/or useless are not necessary offensive or useless.
But the fact remains that Yahoo doesn't stop there and forces you to come up with an answer (I think). She knew that if someone guessed this answer, they'd be able to access her account. She is an idiot for not making it impossible to guess.
Not that I honestly care if someone spray paints a wall or anything, though.
"but as I said, this is balanced by the rate with which the pages are vandalised."
Not when you consider the amount of users Wikipedia has.
"does that make it okay to smash the windows?"
No, that would be actually destroying physical property, which isn't the same as merely altering it. Not only is this action wasting resources (materials), but it also possibly causes money to be spent fixing it.
"You have failed to provide any argument as to why the resources spent reverting Wikipedia vandalism have lesser weight than resources spent fixing physical vandalism."
No, I didn't. You just disagree with my reasoning.
"What if the person does it regularly, at different libraries?"
Zero damage caused is zero damage caused. They'll run out of libraries they are accepted into eventually.
"A public nuisance might be an appropriate charge"
"Public nuisance"? So if a majority of people found what someone was saying offensive, that means it's right because the majority said so? I'd rather not go with that.
"If that's still too close to making money, consider instead someone maliciously reorganising (or throwing on the floor) hundreds of books in a public library."
I don't think that warrants actual punishment. I think that's more annoying than anything.
"and the person might reasonably be banned from the station/library."
Oh? We're talking about being banned from a specific place now? I don't have much of a problem with that, I just feel that suing them or having them arrested (as the first person who I replied to said) is too much. If they want to ban them, then I believe that that's their business. Just like if Wikipedia wants to ban this person (or the range), that is really their business.
"If extra time has to be spent monitoring for malicious changes then that is a significant burden."
The point is that not only can it be easily reverted, but these people are doing this in their spare time. They don't have to do this (that I'm aware of). You can't lose money if you wouldn't be making money in that time anyway.
"The line is always crossed when it comes to death threats, even if a joke."
What line is that? Your own? It certainly isn't mine, because I actually believe in freedom of speech, you see.
"Unfortunately people who regularly post to sites like 4chan, encyclopedia dramatica, something awful, and portal of evil, do this to get their jollies and don't care of the people targeted kill themselves or others because of it."
If someone is offended by something and they kill themselves over it, it's the fault of the person who offended them, rather than themselves (because, you know, "suicide" does imply that they killed themselves)? What if someone is offended by the fact that I'm not part of their religion and they kill themselves over it? Is that my fault? Or does that not count because you personally think (maybe) people should have freedom of religion and be open about it? There's also the fact that everyone is offended by different things, and no one can agree on a universal definition of 'offensive', even if the government or a judge claims that they can. Why should one persons definition of offensiveness outweigh the importance of another persons? It shouldn't, because it's so subjective.
If people seriously kill themselves over mere words (which alone don't do any damage unless you let them), then those are the kind of people who wouldn't last long anyway (and also likely the kind of people who can't take criticism). The answer is for these people to seriously toughen up.
"vandalizing"
I only think that this is okay if it's so easily revertible that it takes the click of a button (it's not like, for instance, destroying physical property). This can be fixed easily and with no money spent (if in some specific case that's wrong, then I will agree with you).
"cheating"
What?
"anti-DRM, Pro-GPL zealots"
Wait... what? What kind of consumer actually likes DRM? Actually, even pirates don't like it (but not because it's hard to crack).
Ah, so any website that has its own definition of "destructive," no matter what it may be, is instantly correct.
"A significant portion of resources goes into vandalism-control on the Wikipedia."
Point?
"but I don't think "it's ion a computer, therefore it's completely different" is the right tack to take."
That's not my entire argument. It's so easily reverted and no damage actually takes place. Sure, they use some time reverting the articles, but it's not only voluntary in almost all cases, but they wouldn't have been making money in the first place with that time (no one would abandon their job to fix a Wikipedia article, and if they do, that's their problem).
I find it disturbing how many people want someone punished merely for 'vandalizing' articles on Wikipedia.
That really depends on how you define "fixing." You also can't just claim that someone owes you money simply because they wasted your time, especially if what you were doing in the first place had nothing to do with making money.
"Criminal damage is not necessarily limited to physical objects."
Yes, because going after people who pull pranks (not even serious ones either) on the internet is definitely worthwhile, right? I suppose you also want half of the users of the internet arrested, too? There's plenty of 'defamation' and 'libel' to go around!
"Did you not read the rest of the post you quoted?"
Yes, I did. Sadly, I can't edit my post to correct that bit.
"Even if that wouldn't have changed your rant, the fact that you use the word "internet" five times in your post leads me to believe you failed to read the entire parent."
Actually, no. I myself used it four times, while I merely quoted some of what he said (which contains the word "internet," making it show up five times in my post). In actuality, he did mention the internet in his post, and the only thing that I got wrong was that his first example didn't happen on the internet.
"Yeah, but my point was that tracking someone down because they merely offended them is just idiotic."
From another post.
"As it is, that makes your post look foolish in a different fashion, and dilutes your message."
How so? If people overlook my entire argument because of one mistake, then these people are not worth my time in the first place. My point that people need to stop being so oversensitive still stands.
"Most walls permit anonymous spray painting: are you contending that graffiti vandalism is not against laws in most jurisdictions?"
Wait... what? I was talking about 'vandalizing' Wikipedia. Digital data is, in most cases (and it is for Wikipedia), recoverable. You can't just click a button and have all of the spray paint go away.
"constitute an invitation from Wikipedia to be destructive"
What is destructive to Wikipedia? What if they defined that as someone posting things that they did not like? Honestly, it's simple: merely revert the articles (which again, can't be done with spray paint).
Yeah, I think a little jail time was in order. After all, if someone posts 'offensive' content (no matter where it is), they should be jailed immediately.
Well, the law is even more illogical than I thought (and that's saying something) if 'vandalizing' wikipedia (which allows anonymous edits) articles is breaking the law. Especially since 'vandalizing' can pretty much mean anything they want it to.
"A young man was continually posting offensive messages and generally being a little prick. The board's operator's tracked him down and spoke to his father, and I remember Ward Christensen commenting that "we know now where Mr. Scopes gets his evil ways." I don't remember how it turned out or what they did, but Mr. Scopes' posts abruptly stopped."
I find it disturbing that they actually tracked someone down merely for posting offensive content on the internet. I mean, really, how oversensitive do you have to be to go to that extreme? That's probably why they were targets in the first place.
"There are always children (or adults with childlike mentalities)"
"My hobby is better than yours!"
"The problem with the Internet is that it allows such people to cause a much greater degree of harm than, say, a teenager with a can of spraypaint, as similar as the mindset may be."
If someone seriously gets 'hurt' by reading a message on the internet that they find offensive (which is highly subjective), then they should not only stop using the internet altogether, but they should also constantly plug their ears when in the presence of others, as they may utter something that they find offensive. This isn't a problem with the internet, this is a problem with oversensitive, weak-minded fools.
Slashdot Mirror
"Your carrying on about how people should be "thicker skinned" may have a place in the modern world but it did not then."
It actually applies to everything. Getting mad never changes or fixes anything. That is what I am trying to say.
Yes, it was limited. I get it. I got that a day ago when someone (actually, multiple people) came to correct my mistake in the form of comments.
"Wow. I clearly said"
I know what you said. Not only was the above post a joke, but it was making fun of any such laws (if they even exist), not you.
"No, it means that you have some childish fuckwit hogging hours of modem time on a system with a single phone line."
Just kick them off, then. I'm not saying I'm against that, I'm just saying that getting law enforcement involved (yes, I know that didn't happen in this case) or being extremely oversensitive is both idiotic and doesn't help. Really, just forbid these people from using it.
"Dude, you're out of line here because you obviously (obviously!) don't understand what those days were like."
I know it was slow. Really slow. Things that they find offensive and/or useless are not necessary offensive or useless.
I meant "yes, it does." You shouldn't have volunteered if you didn't know what you were getting yourself into.
But the fact remains that Yahoo doesn't stop there and forces you to come up with an answer (I think). She knew that if someone guessed this answer, they'd be able to access her account. She is an idiot for not making it impossible to guess.
"Do you mind if people piss your time away for no good reason?"
Yes, I do, but if it's volunteer work, well, I shouldn't have volunteered there. I knew exactly what I was getting into.
"Even the most free speech has its limitations"
Then it's not free speech, now is it?
"Providing personal information on others to harass them"
Shouldn't have let that slip.
"Defaming someone on a free internet forum would be another."
Deal with it. People that believe garbage on some forum on the internet likely aren't people you want to associate yourself with anyway.
"Time spent fixing or protecting against digital vandalism uses man-hours"
Easy to fix vandalism, volunteer work, and no money is used. I simply don't agree with what you're saying.
"Just to drive home the point that the materials aren't the issue here"
They're the issue to me.
"Does this make the actions of the people that wipe bits off the mural something other than vandalism?"
No, it doesn't.
"I say, sure, but a wall can be repainted"
With the click of a button? With volunteers?
Not that I honestly care if someone spray paints a wall or anything, though.
"but as I said, this is balanced by the rate with which the pages are vandalised."
Not when you consider the amount of users Wikipedia has.
"does that make it okay to smash the windows?"
No, that would be actually destroying physical property, which isn't the same as merely altering it. Not only is this action wasting resources (materials), but it also possibly causes money to be spent fixing it.
"You have failed to provide any argument as to why the resources spent reverting Wikipedia vandalism have lesser weight than resources spent fixing physical vandalism."
No, I didn't. You just disagree with my reasoning.
"What if the person does it regularly, at different libraries?"
Zero damage caused is zero damage caused. They'll run out of libraries they are accepted into eventually.
"A public nuisance might be an appropriate charge"
"Public nuisance"? So if a majority of people found what someone was saying offensive, that means it's right because the majority said so? I'd rather not go with that.
"If that's still too close to making money, consider instead someone maliciously reorganising (or throwing on the floor) hundreds of books in a public library."
I don't think that warrants actual punishment. I think that's more annoying than anything.
"and the person might reasonably be banned from the station/library."
Oh? We're talking about being banned from a specific place now? I don't have much of a problem with that, I just feel that suing them or having them arrested (as the first person who I replied to said) is too much. If they want to ban them, then I believe that that's their business. Just like if Wikipedia wants to ban this person (or the range), that is really their business.
"If extra time has to be spent monitoring for malicious changes then that is a significant burden."
The point is that not only can it be easily reverted, but these people are doing this in their spare time. They don't have to do this (that I'm aware of). You can't lose money if you wouldn't be making money in that time anyway.
"The line is always crossed when it comes to death threats, even if a joke."
What line is that? Your own? It certainly isn't mine, because I actually believe in freedom of speech, you see.
"Unfortunately people who regularly post to sites like 4chan, encyclopedia dramatica, something awful, and portal of evil, do this to get their jollies and don't care of the people targeted kill themselves or others because of it."
If someone is offended by something and they kill themselves over it, it's the fault of the person who offended them, rather than themselves (because, you know, "suicide" does imply that they killed themselves)? What if someone is offended by the fact that I'm not part of their religion and they kill themselves over it? Is that my fault? Or does that not count because you personally think (maybe) people should have freedom of religion and be open about it? There's also the fact that everyone is offended by different things, and no one can agree on a universal definition of 'offensive', even if the government or a judge claims that they can. Why should one persons definition of offensiveness outweigh the importance of another persons? It shouldn't, because it's so subjective.
If people seriously kill themselves over mere words (which alone don't do any damage unless you let them), then those are the kind of people who wouldn't last long anyway (and also likely the kind of people who can't take criticism). The answer is for these people to seriously toughen up.
"vandalizing"
I only think that this is okay if it's so easily revertible that it takes the click of a button (it's not like, for instance, destroying physical property). This can be fixed easily and with no money spent (if in some specific case that's wrong, then I will agree with you).
"cheating"
What?
"anti-DRM, Pro-GPL zealots"
Wait... what? What kind of consumer actually likes DRM? Actually, even pirates don't like it (but not because it's hard to crack).
Ah, so any website that has its own definition of "destructive," no matter what it may be, is instantly correct.
"A significant portion of resources goes into vandalism-control on the Wikipedia."
Point?
"but I don't think "it's ion a computer, therefore it's completely different" is the right tack to take."
That's not my entire argument. It's so easily reverted and no damage actually takes place. Sure, they use some time reverting the articles, but it's not only voluntary in almost all cases, but they wouldn't have been making money in the first place with that time (no one would abandon their job to fix a Wikipedia article, and if they do, that's their problem).
I find it disturbing how many people want someone punished merely for 'vandalizing' articles on Wikipedia.
"Detection and fixing takes time"
That really depends on how you define "fixing." You also can't just claim that someone owes you money simply because they wasted your time, especially if what you were doing in the first place had nothing to do with making money.
"Criminal damage is not necessarily limited to physical objects."
It is when it's a simple revert.
"You obviously don't understand how a BBS works."
No, it's just that my entire point revolves around the fact that getting so upset over messages that you deem offensive is idiotic.
I know.
"And when you are forced to read some messages you dont like on SLOW system it is much different from ignoring some post on WWW forum."
Yes, because if you find something offensive, that instantly means that it's bad and useless.
Yes, because going after people who pull pranks (not even serious ones either) on the internet is definitely worthwhile, right? I suppose you also want half of the users of the internet arrested, too? There's plenty of 'defamation' and 'libel' to go around!
"Did you not read the rest of the post you quoted?"
Yes, I did. Sadly, I can't edit my post to correct that bit.
"Even if that wouldn't have changed your rant, the fact that you use the word "internet" five times in your post leads me to believe you failed to read the entire parent."
Actually, no. I myself used it four times, while I merely quoted some of what he said (which contains the word "internet," making it show up five times in my post). In actuality, he did mention the internet in his post, and the only thing that I got wrong was that his first example didn't happen on the internet.
"Yeah, but my point was that tracking someone down because they merely offended them is just idiotic."
From another post.
"As it is, that makes your post look foolish in a different fashion, and dilutes your message."
How so? If people overlook my entire argument because of one mistake, then these people are not worth my time in the first place. My point that people need to stop being so oversensitive still stands.
Better go after half of the people who use the internet, then.
"Most walls permit anonymous spray painting: are you contending that graffiti vandalism is not against laws in most jurisdictions?"
Wait... what? I was talking about 'vandalizing' Wikipedia. Digital data is, in most cases (and it is for Wikipedia), recoverable. You can't just click a button and have all of the spray paint go away.
"constitute an invitation from Wikipedia to be destructive"
What is destructive to Wikipedia? What if they defined that as someone posting things that they did not like? Honestly, it's simple: merely revert the articles (which again, can't be done with spray paint).
Yeah, I think a little jail time was in order. After all, if someone posts 'offensive' content (no matter where it is), they should be jailed immediately.
Yeah, but my point was that tracking someone down because they merely offended them is just idiotic.
Well, the law is even more illogical than I thought (and that's saying something) if 'vandalizing' wikipedia (which allows anonymous edits) articles is breaking the law. Especially since 'vandalizing' can pretty much mean anything they want it to.
"A young man was continually posting offensive messages and generally being a little prick. The board's operator's tracked him down and spoke to his father, and I remember Ward Christensen commenting that "we know now where Mr. Scopes gets his evil ways." I don't remember how it turned out or what they did, but Mr. Scopes' posts abruptly stopped."
I find it disturbing that they actually tracked someone down merely for posting offensive content on the internet. I mean, really, how oversensitive do you have to be to go to that extreme? That's probably why they were targets in the first place.
"There are always children (or adults with childlike mentalities)"
"My hobby is better than yours!"
"The problem with the Internet is that it allows such people to cause a much greater degree of harm than, say, a teenager with a can of spraypaint, as similar as the mindset may be."
If someone seriously gets 'hurt' by reading a message on the internet that they find offensive (which is highly subjective), then they should not only stop using the internet altogether, but they should also constantly plug their ears when in the presence of others, as they may utter something that they find offensive. This isn't a problem with the internet, this is a problem with oversensitive, weak-minded fools.