...and partly because there's no collapse function...
I'm of the mind that Techdirt should add switch for this in the personal settings with three options:
1) Hide reported comments - works like it does presently
2) Collapse reported comments - hides reported comments and all responses to the reported comments
3) Show all - doesn't hide anything (but does indicate somewhere which comments have reached the hide threshold)
That way everyone could be happy.
I actually like it when comment threads go off topic here. It's not very often in real life that one has to limit their conversation to a specific topic when talking amongst their peers, so I just don't see why it's such a issue for some people when threads veer off-topic here.
...then there is not and has never been a socialist nation
China certainly attempted to become a socialist society. Unfortunately, it forced them to isolate their country from the world to try to achieve it. It seems that the experiment failed seeing that they have since embraced capitalism with a fever.
And yes, I agree that that there never has been or will ever be a truly socialistic nation. It doesn't seem to be realistic possibility to me. Humans need not only reward for hard work, but also the possibility of a better personal future.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Vastly better way to prevent abuse is get rid of billionaires. Tax them out of existence. Easy to do, popular, guaranteed to work, and would have good effects every way.
Most of Europe seems to be doing as well as anyone and they're socialist. Canada is trucking along just fine as far as I can tell and they're certainly more socialist than the US...
None of those are true socialist systems, they are capitalist systems with socialistic tendencies. You can still raise capitol, start a manufacturing business and accumulate personal wealth in those places. In a true socialist system everything is owned by everyone and profits are distributed equally. In a communistic system everything is owned by the state and living wages are (supposedly) equal.
China has given up on their great socialistic experiment and has been slowly embracing capitalism because it gives the masses something to work towards.
The USSR failed because the workers did as little as possible since there was no additional rewards for going the extra mile.
PS: I am not a student of economics at all, so I could be way wrong here, but this is how I see it.
The reason I asked the question the way I did is because here in the US we have very little legal expectation of privacy while in a public space.
I'm also not sure your statement of "privacy includes the privacy of your communications" is as absolute as you make it out to be. Posting a notice on public bulletin board is a form of communication that has no expectation privacy whatsoever. Wouldn't posting a comment to a website be similar?
On a similar vein concerning snail mail, mail sealed within an envelope has an expectation of privacy, but a postcard does not.
I'm not trying to argue here. Like I said I mostly agree with your sentiments, I'm just trying to figure out in my own mind, where the line between "private" and "public" is concerning activities online.
The same as you aren't allowed to put cams on my home to spy what I do, the same applies to the internet. Or should apply.
I don't necessarily disagree with you or your comment, but I do have question concerning the sentence I quoted:
Does this privacy right you speak of extend to when you are in public areas? IE: Could I legally photograph you walking down the street? If so, wouldn't most your activities on the internet also be considered to be happening in a public space?
My point is that someone who is a bit above that -- not an expert, but can do basic things like use an email program -- are being called "tech-savvy" now.
I used to use the term "application idiot" for someone who could do all the basic stuff and even some advanced stuff within a specific program they used everyday, but were completely lost when the desktop icon for that program was inadvertently deleted.
Re: Re: Re: Re: The real problem is you want to blame someone else
At some point, sites which provide more than just a "dumb pipe" service need to bear at least some responsibility to keep their sites and services from becoming cesspools and legal blinds from which hateful and illegal "speech" can be lobbed like grenades.
Personally, I don't think assigning more liability to websites for user content will achieve what you are aiming for. What will happen is that those sites will stop allowing user content and those commenters will move to encrypted, distributed platforms (like Freenet or the next generation of that type of platform that comes along) where locating them is even more difficult then it is now.
The internet has, for the first time in history, allowed the average person to have a far-reaching platform for speech that doesn't require going through a gatekeeper. I don't believe human nature will allow you to stuff that genie back into it's bottle.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
But, you can't deflect criticism of guns by denying that they're weapons by design.
Yes. I already conceded that my initial statement was incorrect and didn't stand up to my own scrutiny once I thought about it some more.
The usefulness of a gun as a tool stems from the fact that it is a weapon by design.
As someone who comes from a completely different culture, I'm mystified by the obsession many Americans have with guns, especially the more obsessive, fetishistic approach taken by many.
I think this difference is rooted in the fact that when Americans pioneered our wildernesses guns were the weapon of choice for protection. I don't know where exactly you are located, but perhaps it would be akin to someone wanting outlaw all swords in your culture.
Re: Re: You're going to have to explain that to me.
Ok, so those quoted facts obviously prove that you think that drinking alcohol is immoral and that's fine. It, however, still doesn't prove that me or anyone else or even society as a whole thinks drinking is immoral (which it obviously doesn't since I see no slowdown alcohol consumption). Morals are subjective, plain and simple. What you think to be immoral isn't always what other people think is immoral.
Wow. That last sentence doesn't really make much sense. Let's try this again:
What I'm trying to ask (poorly, I know) is if the studies compare bad situations where guns are involved to the same situation where no weapons are available and also compare them to the same situation where a weapon other than a gun is available?
It seems to me that the results of bad situations where any weapon is available would be similar whether it's guns, knifes or baseball bats. To compare just the ones with guns to the ones with no weapons would seem disingenuous to me.