Wikipedia founder on keeping a civil cybertongue

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574572101333074122.html

by grellas • 17 years ago

18 6 17 years ago

online.wsj.com

yannis2• 17 years ago

>Finally, it's time to re-examine the current legal system. Online hostility is cross-jurisdictional. We might need laws that directly address this challenge. There is currently no uniformity of definition among states in the definition of cyberbullying and cyberharassment. Perhaps federal input is needed.

I don't get it that people don't get that the internet cannot really be policed! How would a law in the States stop someone from Iran to bully someone in a forum.

Who can stop them are the website owners, moderators and other members. It is really like in real life, some websites are small like small villages and need only one policeman, others like Wikipedia are like cities and might need a stronger 'police force'. The 'punishment' is easy and swift you just ban the user!

What is needed are stronger algorithms to automate some of these chores, not more lawyers!

timwiseman2• 17 years ago

I don't get it that people don't get that the internet cannot really be policed! How would a law in the States stop someone from Iran to bully someone in a forum.

The fact the internet is internation makes it difficult, not impossible for the Internet to be policed.

First, remember that even though the internet makes international dealings trivially easy, much of the interaction (most perhaps?) takes place entirely within the borders of one country. This makes it easily subject to that country's laws.

Further, even when it is truly international there are still ways of enforcing at least a large subset of laws through international courts, or by suing in a court with jurisdiction over the defendant, or in some major cases through extradition.

And that is what can be done right now. With time and work, international governing bodies and more detailed treaties can be written to ease those legal dealings. (What form those can or should take is well beyond the current scope, but it is safe to say they are possible and even likely.)

(edited to fix grammar)

yannis2• 17 years ago

First, remember that even though the internet makes international dealings trivially easy, much of the interaction (most perhaps?) takes place entirely within the borders of one country.

That is true and current laws in most countries would allow you to sue someone for defamation etc. Even cross-border in most cases. The problem is not the legal framework it is rather the policing that is the problem. Laws per se do not stop criminal activity. My own argument is that the community itself should do the policing, perhaps aided by better software and a device that ... can send a 60000 kV spike back to someone's computer when he behaves badly :)

Zilioum• 17 years ago

He's making a good point and I believe that protection against harassment on the internet should be better. On the other hand I think the huge amount of crap people post is a inevitable side effect of the ease of communication the internet has brought. You cant filter "stupid" stuff, after all, whos to decide what is stupid and what not?

pgbovine• 17 years ago

his points are definitely commendable, but i'm wondering how he can more effectively convey them to a wider (read: low-brow) audience. WSJ readers are (hopefully) not the same people leaving abusive remarks on youtube or 4chan comments :)

Wikipedia founder on keeping a civil cybertongue

Related Stories