ur dum
I am not.
Perhaps you disagreed with the content of this post. What about it exactly did you disagree with? Is there any way I could, perhaps, make it less offensive without compromising the overall meaning?
I would also like to point out that, though I respect your overall goal towards efficiency, "dum" is generally spelled with a b at the end, and you also spelled "your" incorrectly.
Some comments are as pathetic as this.
Some really are. Some people decide that the world will be a better place by expressing their belief that the author is unintelligent (or perhaps unable to speak).
Some are more vicious, and though personally I feel it is the vicious comments that are most important to sign, some don't. The question of whether a controversial comment loses its meaning when unsigned is for another day, another essay. But some feel that people should not be allowed to post an anonymous insulting comment.
This is the crucial turning point of the debate over anonymity. Does a mean-spirited anonymous person have a right to anonymity? By posting a mean comment, does he lose that right? What is the point of anonymity without being able to speak your mind? If someone is being insulted, do they have a right to know who is insulting them? Would it be better off if they didn't know?
The last question is a matter that every blog owner needs to decide themselves, and is a matter of personal preference. Is it better to know that someone is insulting you, even if it turns out to be your friend? This is not the matter that I will be dealing with.
I will be addressing the question of the rights of the insulted against the rights of the commenter. Does an insulted person have a right to know who posted the angry comment, even at the expense of the anonymity of the commenter?
In a word, no. An anonymous commenter's rights shall be preserved at all costs.
Anonymity is one of the most precious things in this world, and with increasing security and restrictions on rights, it could be also be one of the most powerful.
It should also be pointed out that the blog administrator has all of the power in these situations, whether he knows who the commenter is or not. He can choose whether his blog allows anonymous comments at all and also choose to delete the comment if he wishes. The identity of the commenter is, in itself, trivial, and the mere desire to know who posted the comment should not be allowed to compromise the rights of the commenter.
VOA and the likes take it upon themselves to reveal the identity of the commenters, without regard to rights at all. He does not regard the anonymous commenter's right to anonymity, and he also does not regard everyone else's right to ignorance. I know this sounds a little bizarre, but sometimes there are certain comments people would rather not know who posted, and they have that right. It also detracts from the content of the comment, and although it may be as pathetic as "ur dum", it may also be worthwhile.
It also seems that VOA's idea that the anonymity gives him "a greater impact on the comment board" (actual quote) would make him realize that an unwilling identity depreciates the value of the comment by distracting other readers, but his hypocrisy will be addressed in a later essay.
Innocent commenters are not the only victims whose rights are being taken away. It is wrong to reveal the identity of any commenter, malicious or otherwise.
Perhaps you disagreed with the content of this post. What about it exactly did you disagree with? Is there any way I could, perhaps, make it less offensive without compromising the overall meaning?
I would also like to point out that, though I respect your overall goal towards efficiency, "dum" is generally spelled with a b at the end, and you also spelled "your" incorrectly.
Some comments are as pathetic as this.
Some really are. Some people decide that the world will be a better place by expressing their belief that the author is unintelligent (or perhaps unable to speak).
Some are more vicious, and though personally I feel it is the vicious comments that are most important to sign, some don't. The question of whether a controversial comment loses its meaning when unsigned is for another day, another essay. But some feel that people should not be allowed to post an anonymous insulting comment.
This is the crucial turning point of the debate over anonymity. Does a mean-spirited anonymous person have a right to anonymity? By posting a mean comment, does he lose that right? What is the point of anonymity without being able to speak your mind? If someone is being insulted, do they have a right to know who is insulting them? Would it be better off if they didn't know?
The last question is a matter that every blog owner needs to decide themselves, and is a matter of personal preference. Is it better to know that someone is insulting you, even if it turns out to be your friend? This is not the matter that I will be dealing with.
I will be addressing the question of the rights of the insulted against the rights of the commenter. Does an insulted person have a right to know who posted the angry comment, even at the expense of the anonymity of the commenter?
In a word, no. An anonymous commenter's rights shall be preserved at all costs.
Anonymity is one of the most precious things in this world, and with increasing security and restrictions on rights, it could be also be one of the most powerful.
It should also be pointed out that the blog administrator has all of the power in these situations, whether he knows who the commenter is or not. He can choose whether his blog allows anonymous comments at all and also choose to delete the comment if he wishes. The identity of the commenter is, in itself, trivial, and the mere desire to know who posted the comment should not be allowed to compromise the rights of the commenter.
VOA and the likes take it upon themselves to reveal the identity of the commenters, without regard to rights at all. He does not regard the anonymous commenter's right to anonymity, and he also does not regard everyone else's right to ignorance. I know this sounds a little bizarre, but sometimes there are certain comments people would rather not know who posted, and they have that right. It also detracts from the content of the comment, and although it may be as pathetic as "ur dum", it may also be worthwhile.
It also seems that VOA's idea that the anonymity gives him "a greater impact on the comment board" (actual quote) would make him realize that an unwilling identity depreciates the value of the comment by distracting other readers, but his hypocrisy will be addressed in a later essay.
Innocent commenters are not the only victims whose rights are being taken away. It is wrong to reveal the identity of any commenter, malicious or otherwise.
posted by Sam Austin at 5:59 PM
1 Comments:
I just have a few grammatical things to point out.
And I know, this makes me sound like a total nerd, but whatever. (:
1. "...and you also spelled 'your' incorrectly."
I think you mean the contraction "you're," rather than the possesive "your."
2. "This is not the matter that I will be dealing with."
Ended with a preposition. o:
But I did love your essay.
(:
Post a Comment
<< Home