

Wikipedia founder on keeping a civil cybertongue - grellas
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574572101333074122.html

======
yannis
>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!

~~~
timwiseman
_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)

~~~
yannis
_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 :)

~~~
timwiseman
_The problem is not the legal framework it is rather the policing that is the
problem._

I see what you are saying, but while this is still very much an evolving area
there is a great deal of good policing going on in the truly criminal cases.
The FBI has a very impressive Cyber division for instance.

 _My own argument is that the community itself should do the policing, perhaps
aided by better software and a device that_

When it comes to things like low level harassment and simple rudeness, I
largely agree with you. Good moderators combined with good automation should
be able to keep that to a minimum.

When it comes to more complicated areas (adjudicating legitimate fair use or
dealing with real hackers), then I believe it is necessary to have good laws
with good, effective enforcement. At least from my perspective, while these
things are in their infancy and are evolving rapidly, they can be and are
being built.

 _can send a 60000 kV spike back to someone's computer when he behaves badly
:)_

Tempting thought in some cases ;-)

------
Zilioum
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
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 :)

