I Feel So Sad

[jimji]

I've been a member here for so many years and after about ten years of studying Online Communities, with meticulous documentation of those studies and research, I was saving this Online Community as the last place to ask some serious questions about the future of the Internet, but from careful reading of the charter, I see I won't be allowed to ask for opinions on my opinions about what the future of the Internet will be like for my children and grandchildren, and beyond.

I feel such sadness. And fear.

And I guess this post will be the last piece of documentation that goes into my research notes before I start my publishing of all my efforts.

So sad!

[tangor]

Human rights or Feline rights?

How does that relate to webmastering?

[jimji]

If I may be excused for entering into a nonsense world when I made a few references to feline rights.

I'm sorry for that attempt at humor. I was stupid. I'm sorry.

Your question, tangor, about human beings and the Internet I do not understand.

I mean a webmaster could be the owner of an Online Community, so you are asking me what human rights have to do with an Online Community? Just trying to get a clarification. Thank you.

[tangor]

I don't have any windmills to tilt. Just trying to figure out which windmill you want charted, chased, or discussed.

Online communities generally have rules of topic and behavior. If one disagrees with those rules, no one is compelled to join. If one DOES voluntarily join, one is expected to abide by the TOS. This is what is known as a CONTRACT, and there are NO rights extending beyond "the four corners" (reference to paper contracts). This MIGHT fall into Tort Law, but never in RIGHTS as granted by government.

[jimji]

Seems it is the polite style to answer your question about my purpose before I go to any other thread, even it has been a number of months since your post, tangor. And some months back I thought I could answer you, but had doubts that caused me to wait and then one thing led to another and I didn't return to answer in a timely manner. Accept an apology, please.

It might be that it boils down to my not believing that ownership of a site that incorporates an Online Community allows for total control of that community. That total control is allowed and is acceptable seems to be the general consensus of many in this field of managing an Online Community. But my use of "might be" at the beginning of this paragraph is important because there are so many factors involved and the view that an Online Community cannot be compared to a brick-and-mortar community when discussing certain rights humans have in a brick-and-mortar community has a validity that is worrisome. Valid aspects that would be foolish to ignore.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to properly analyze the data I've gathered to help me work out a better response to the question of where I want to go with this line of questioning.

And as I review this post I see it is a poor answer, but at this time it is about the best I can do. I hope I can provide a better answer soon.

[tangor]

I might phrase this poorly, but pretty sure where you want to take this, @jimji.

If you want that kind of "freedom of speech", set up your own website/community and have a merry old time. All the rest of us have participation rules, adherence to topic, or---in the greater world---a desire to avoid conflict with powers that be (think governments). Usually that is contained in a terms of service (TOS) or other advisory.

Twitter pre-Musk screwed the pooch, royally. Twitter post-Musk is doing the same thing---but what must be declared up front either version of t had perfect right to manage their site, though both operate(d) "public" in that the public can play but is NOT A PUBLIC PLACE since they own it lock, stock, and barrel.

House rules. If you don't like'em build a new house with YOUR rules. :)

[jimji]

There have been some judicial decisions made by state and federal courts in the U.S.about rights within a privately owned domain, that have leaned toward some free speech rights being upheld in private domains. One in particular by the Supreme Court was overturned later, but the point I am making is that to ask for some sort of rights in an Online Community isn't beyond the realm of someday actually being permanently codified by law.

There is also a much stronger leaning toward that same idea in the EU. In fact, I suspect it will be the law in the EU before it is in the U.S., but it isn't quite so fanciful as you seem to think it is, tangor.

Frankly, humans have had to work so hard over hundreds of years to gain their rights on the ground, so the Net and rights associated to humans on the Net are going to take a long time, but probably not as long as it took on the ground.

And where I am actually going with this is very fanciful, and has taken fantastic hits from big guns, is I want the Net to eventually be an entity of its own as is any nation on the ground. And when I state "big guns" I mean it. Just ask some of the upper management at the ISOC a few years ago what they did to me. Except they allowed me to stay a member, bless them.

But little steps are important and I think the folks in Europe are a bit more attuned to rights being taken away so easily by bad people and governments and so are a bit better attuned to what is possible on this Internet.

You see, tangor, if this Internet keeps on the path it is on, even governments on the ground won't be able to control a darn thing. It will be a few very, very rich companies that control everything. At some point roadblocks have to go up, and I'd rather see Net Citizens do it rather than individual governments, even if the governments doing it have the best of intentions.

That is where I am aiming. One way or the other, what I am writing in this post will be what y'all will see in another couple of decades, if we don't nuke ourselves back into caves. Either money wins, or the people win. And I am including government in "money wins" because that is what we are now seeing. Money wins elections in a democracy. People are sitting on their butts too much and not paying attention. And Big Tech (money) can seriously influence peoples' thinking through the use of the Net, and can also hand out huge piles of cash to campaigns that meet the needs of Big Tech. Humans have gotten themselves in a really bad bind.

[Kendo]

What reading this thread tells me is that the right of discretion needs to remain with the owner/proprietor so that they may easily put an end to nonsense... whether it be online community, restaurant or backyard barbecue..

[jimji]

That is a very clever expression --- "the right of discretion" --- and at first thought it is scary. That seems to be adding extra parameters to this discussion. That seems to take us beyond just rights related to expressing one's viewpoint. Very clever. I'll have to think about that one for a bit. Thank you.