Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Internet Rhetoric -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ~digs who wrote (17)	6/28/2004 3:12:18 AM
From: ~digs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 73

Julian Dibbell's "A Rape in Cyberspace" juliandibbell.com How an Evil Clown, a Haitian Trickster Spirit, Two Wizards, and a Cast of Dozens Turned a Database Into a Society first published in The Village Voice, December 23, 1993 synopsis: situation takes place in the early days of a chatroom-like-platform an obnoxious man virtually rapes participants participants debate what to do w/ the man he is eventually banished from platform creator initiates a democratic way to deal w/ future offenders offender re-emerges w/ new screen name article basically touches on the indefinite nature of the internet ... how real life contrasts with virtual reality .... make believe scenarios constructed by text can bring about real emotion ... a-hole can hurt the mind but not the physical body quote worth pondering... Only with time and the acquisition of a fixed character do players tend to make the critical passage from anonymity to pseudonymity, developing the concern for their character's reputation that marks the attainment of virtual adulthood.

To: ~digs who wrote (17)	7/4/2004 3:54:23 PM
From: ~digs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 73

week 4: copyright, intellectual property, and peer-to-peer file sharing ...Digital Rights Management questions to consider: -what is the legal definition of intellectual property? How it has worked in the past? Can it work on the Internet? -When we look at P2P independent of the law, how does this differ from the way you currently understand the Internet? What are the current arguments against P2P? To what do they object and why? -What makes copyright problematic when applied to the Internet? Do characteristics of the Internet make copyright protection impossible or unrealistic? Is this a good or a bad thing? -Is a "new public idea" of intellectual property emerging on the Internet? Are Larry Lessig and others, like the Creative Commons organization, really making a difference in the way people understand intellectual property? How is this public understanding different from legal understanding? Will this public understanding actually make change? -Who is benefiting from the use of peer-to-peer networks? Who is against it? What are these various stakeholders fighting for?

To: ~digs who wrote (17)	8/18/2004 11:01:22 PM
From: ~digs	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 73

-------- Give Flamers the Cold-Shoulder -------- Baker's article about Usenet activity resonated well with me. I have been witness to many online 'flame wars.' They are never pretty and I am usually one of the first to bow out of the discussion. It is said that, "Outing is one of the most effective means of rendering the hypocritical impotent." Baker says this is because "outing can alter the identities of those involved." The problem with outing as a solution to flame wars is that more often than not, either the offender just plain does not care about his/her history, or there simply isn't any history to look back upon. While many forums require a person to register before participating, the registration process is usually an anonymous one. This permits single users to have multiple identities on the same server. If somebody is determined to be a jerk, but doesn't want to be immediately known as one, then he/she can easily re-invent their existence by creating a new account. Baker goes on to say that "everyone has the potential to ignite or contribute towards moral panics." Put differently, moral panics are a two-way street: They cannot come about unless those whom are offended take a stance against the perpetrator. For this reason, I suggest that while 'outing' may be an effective way to minimalize flame wars, the very best way to rectify the situation is to ignore the offender entirely. This means that the whole group must maintain discipline and ignore the person collectively. All too often, established group members have an inability to refrain from being goaded into a response that is either to or about the offender... thereby perpetuating the flame war. They needn't do this. It is better to just dismiss the antagonist as being exactly that. Do not dignify him/her with a response. A radical who is unable to garner attention will eventually fade away. By definition, "online identity construction is a joint process between a performer and an involved audience." In other words, one cannot formulate an online identity (be it positive or negative) without receiving feedback. Thus, completely shunning an outlandish person renders him/her powerless in an online environment. If imitation is thought to be the most sincere form of flattery, than it is my argument that being truly ignored is the epitome of rejection.