![]() People would vent about crazy random shit, and all of the EQ guild politics were in full force there. It became about 60% of the board's traffic. The flames there were insanely uncivil, and I was one of the nastiest of the bunch because I was 19 at the time and smack talk is best saved for competitive gaming. I forced people to add themselves to the group if they wanted to see it or post there, making them acknowledge that it was a fully uncensored, unmoderated space. We had a 'Flames and Rants' section for that on my old phpBB forum (about Tildes size at peak), prefaced with the label 'everything herein is 100% BS'. From the outside it would look like "oh, the person who's crying about being banned unfairly deleted their posts afterwards? Was it that bad what they said?" This paragraph is of course contingent on whether we want an audit trail.Ĭue one of the OGs like cfabbro or NaraVara telling me why my thought process might be sound but I haven't considered well known edge case X. It'd satisfy their right to be forgotten, their copyright protections, and even from a "quasi-legal" perspective it makes sense to me that if the "accused" removes evidence from the equation to use that against them. For that matter, I could imagine that the copy contained in the audit trail could still be deleted by the author, but it'd be treated as a "guilty plea". It is of course orthogonal to the issue of an audit trail. ![]() Also sounds like it could be easy to implement. Maybe deleting a post automatically triggers a direct message to the account holder with the post text and a notice that it was deleted? That means we're not destroying the work, but simultaneously the post doesn't stay up. I also fully understand that that's not a development priority right now, but I think it'd be the right thing to do. If I'm reading the german law right, that might actually be the case. It wouldn't surprise me if there were a legal obligation in some countries to do such a thing. That doesn't mean the essay has to stay up, but I think at least the author should have access to it. I'd hate for a 3-page essay to get burned because someone in a neighboring comment set the whole thread on fire. Especially considering the effort some people put into their posts. I agree with this, but also, it's similarly iffy to delete people's posts outright, seeing as they are the only existing copy of their copyright-protected work. ![]() It could also be a violation of things like the GDPR if you were preventing users from being able to edit or delete some of their posts. No, you're not being persecuted, your discussion is just a waste of time.Īnyway, I paid the long-form discussion tax so I can say guilt free: lolol get rekt Any argument against is met with "you just don't get it" while if they're ignored then they're "being silenced". And now equipped with this newfound knowledge they have to preach about how everything can be solved by only self-reliance. Everything makes sense suddenly because self reliance is the morale truth, but they conveniently forget about the systems in place for them to succeed in the first place (public education, roads, hospitals, fire departments, any infrastructure in general). It's like being a high schooler that's read Ayn Rand for the first time. So they latch on to an objective truth in their mind (like free speech, gender norms, or in this case eugenics) and see any opportunity to "debate" as a chance to validate how they're smarter than the masses. Many people have their identity tied to being in the right and have grown up in an internet debate mindset. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |