Comments on: Muzzling the online vigilantes http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/04/22/muzzling-the-online-vigilantes/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: NorthernLight http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/04/22/muzzling-the-online-vigilantes/#comment-72157 Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:06:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=19751#comment-72157 Is there a law that says I cannot post “Michael Maiello will give $1,000 to the next 200 people who post comments on this article?” Well, no, but my credibility is at stake here. I’m not going to say it because it’s not true. One thing I’ve learned from these vigilante sources (and they have learned as well) is that information comes fast and it’s often wrong right after an event. Look at CNN, they flubbed a serious amount of reporting around the Boston event. Do we shut them down? Or make laws against them? No… because their credibility tanked. Let natural forces work here– people will stop trusting what they read on Reddit or 4Chan, and stop watching horrible news like CNN. Stop trying to legislate common sense.

]]>
By: brotherkenny4 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/04/22/muzzling-the-online-vigilantes/#comment-72150 Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:33:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=19751#comment-72150 If you fear we are becoming like the former soviet union where neighbors spied on neighbors your a little late. We converted to a system of neighbors spies back in the eighties under Reagan. He was our true big brother. We’re so used to it now we don’t even recognize that it exists. Granted, it’s not so much about crime incarceration, but rather cowing for the purposes conformity and consumption. That’s why to industry leaders the high consumer is more important than the high performer.

]]>
By: VultureTX http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/04/22/muzzling-the-online-vigilantes/#comment-72134 Tue, 23 Apr 2013 03:02:08 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=19751#comment-72134 @usagadfly – except the attacks are obviously partisan when it comes to the powerful. And there is no repercussions for anon in general, only a few hackers.

]]>
By: usagadfly http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/04/22/muzzling-the-online-vigilantes/#comment-72131 Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:46:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=19751#comment-72131 If anything, online commentators reveal the truth about powerful people previously able to muzzle critics. We do not need to have that system back.

Wrongdoing has long been a habit of the highly placed. It is significantly more hazardous now. If someone slanders someone else, let them sue. In general, public discussion of all sorts strengthens our system.

]]>
By: amateurediteur http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/04/22/muzzling-the-online-vigilantes/#comment-72129 Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:27:29 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=19751#comment-72129 You’re wrong to say that a US plaintiff has to prove “recklessness and malice.” First, the “and” should be “or” – an important distinction. Second, that is only the rule when the alleged victim is a public figure (politician, celebrity, etc.) In the examples you gave (one of which was from Canada, but I’ll let that slide) the plaintiffs would have a much lighter burden of proof. Before recommending changes to existing law, make sure you understand it.

]]>
By: taybme http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/04/22/muzzling-the-online-vigilantes/#comment-72128 Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:14:06 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=19751#comment-72128 ” nosy neighbor is probably more a threat to people’s privacy and reputations than government eavesdropping”

Except for the fact that a nosy neighbor cannot issue a warrant for your arrest.

Sure, Reddit was too aggressive in their well-intentioned vigilantism but their overreach is nothing compared to that of the federal governments.

Given the choice between a prying nosy neighbor and the government, I will take the neighbor everytime.

]]>