Posted on 01/06/2010 7:33:38 PM PST by GOP_Lady
Rude and abusive online behavior should not be met with silence.
In less than 20 years, the World Wide Web has irrevocably expanded the number of ways we connect and communicate with others. This radical transformation has been almost universally praised.
What hasn't kept pace with the technical innovation is the recognition that people need to engage in civil dialogue. What we see regularly on social networking sites, blogs and other online forums is behavior that ranges from the carelessly rude to the intentionally abusive.
Flare-ups occur on social networking sites because of the ease by which thoughts can be shared through the simple press of a button. Ordinary people, celebrities, members of the media and even legal professionals have shown insufficient restraint before clicking send. There is no shortage of examples—from the recent Twitter heckling at a Web 2.0 Expo in New York, to a Facebook poll asking whether President Obama should be killed.
The comments sections of online gossip sites, as well as some national media outlets, often reflect semi-literate, vitriolic remarks that appear to serve no purpose besides disparaging their intended target. Some sites exist solely as a place for mean-spirited individuals to congregate and spew their venomous verbiage.
Online hostility targeting adults is vastly underreported. The reasons victims fail to come forward include the belief that online hostility is an unavoidable and even acceptable mode of behavior; the pervasive notion that hostile online speech is a tolerable form of free expression; the perceived social stigma of speaking out against attacks; and the absence of readily available support infrastructure to assist victims.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
You think THEY’RE disgusting- you should check out Youtube. You’ll want to take a shower afterwards....
I guess it’s okay when it comes to ratings and money, huh?
Maybe that is a reflection of us or maybe that what we’ve become a reflection of.
now I just want to see it even more.
I sure hope you’re right.
During the 1960s and before there were laws enforced against disturbing someone’s peace. In at least some states, the offended could punch insulting offenders in their mouths. We had a more civil society. Then during the last year or two of the 1960s, anti-social individuals—members of SDS, for one (commie hippies), spread a malignant plague of policies for enforcing the offensive behaviors of ugly, little people.
I was going to say SMN!
But I thought better of it.
www.democraticunderground.com
LMAO
I am certain. I am also certain I wouldn’t want to be them. THey’ve probably done a whole lot else that I wouldn’t want to answer for either.
I agree!
I noticed after you posted your comment that one of the writers was the founder of Wikipedia. (Jimmy Wales)
Still, they probably have a lower than average incidence of really serious STDs.
WTH? If it's not tolerable (albeit stupid), then expression isn't free, is it?
You are free to post so long as the ‘Lady’ does not find it offensive. Just try knocking Romney and see how far she’s willing to allow you to ‘speak’!
If you want free speech, you have to take the good with the bad. If you want to regulate it so your finer sensibilities are not offended, you might be a Democrat.
We can plead for polite discourse, but we can’t enforce it without loss of liberty.
I do not make a habit of posting inflammatory comments unless I have the detailed facts to back up the allegations. I do, however, make a habit of challenging stupidly inflammatory rhetoric, if only as a way to sharpen my debating skills. I try to base my opinions on factual information, although I will admit to also trusting my “gut” reactions from time to time.
I detest Romney and his demonstrated history from Massachusetts. I will not and cannot ever support him politically, although he might be suitable in a constrained position supporting a truly conservative administration.
Just my $.02, but still mine...
Allow me to toss an addition $.02 with yours. Mitts formidible business accumen could be useful, though his rinoism should be avoided, always. And i don’t think he’s truthful. He fooled me once on pro-life issues. Never again.
I always think of Future Shock when I think of the way we (mis)use the Internet. What it reminds me of is the CB radio craze of the 60’s and 70’s. Here was a tool that had been around for a long time and then seemingly overnight it exploded in popularity.
Suddenly everybody and their idiot son had one and was talking smack on the damned thing. There were rules and an established etiquette but all that was largely ignored by the great unwashed masses.
It’s own popularity was its (almost) undoing. The channels became so unusable due to the pimply-faced morons that legitimate users largely gave up. All that was left was a virtual wasteland of immature idiots swearing at one another at the top of their lungs.
I see a lot of similarities here. We have an excellent set of tools at our disposal and too many of us figuratively use them to prop up the door.
It’s the anonymity IMO. People say stuff on the boards that they would never have the brass to do in person.
I don’t know if we will ever grow into our technology. When I read stuff like what they publish over at DU or KOS I really tend to doubt it...
Several years ago, Yahoo Chat was delightful. After a couple of years, nasty people came aboard and the shredding began.
Everyone can put aside some of their restrait and that is the whole point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.